How would you identify yourself, politically?

[John-LP]

Thanks all of you for a lot of very good answers. I expected a lot of "I don`t fit in anywhere"s and especially some problems with our foreign friends. I struggled putting this together in realization that one term in America may not mean the same in another country. I originally had only 4 options, so I did try. Also, I would really like to thank all of you for keeping it civil in here. I was afraid that it would turn into a political brawl and the thread would be closed, but you all kept it pretty damn cool in here, so a lot of thanks for the good answers, your thoughts and your ability to co-exist with perhaps some more opposing elements.

To respond about a few things, I added "Independent" and "Other" to the list for those of you who had no place. I hope you used it.

--------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hitro
I prefer not to associate myself with any political movement and to look at every issue for itself.
In general my views are pretty much along what I percieve as "giving people all freedom there is as long as it doesn't restrict other people's freedom".
If you want a label then take "Libertarian Socialist"

Libertarian Socialist doesnt sound right

Socialists want to redistribute wealth from rich and give it to poor people, even without the consent of the rich...certainly not a Libertarian view...

 

[LesCanadiens]

I identify myself as one with heavy communist sympathies.

I feel that in the ideal state, the government would freely give everything necessary to the people. Nationalized industries, etc.

 

[John-LP]

Originally posted by polymath
Independent.
I am broadly in favour of this, that and the other.
I especially like a bit of the other!

Seriously, folks.

Less of this nanny state. People should get off their backsides.
No job? I'll find you something to do.
Gradually phase out cars. Mass Transit is the ticket.
Solar power, wind power, water power.
Recycling.
Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.
Nationalisation of industries.
That sort of thing.

You fit in as an "Authoritarian"...sounds Imperialist to me...

 

[John-LP]

Originally posted by Double Barrel
I would say that I'm a libertarian (small "L"). But, I'm more of a "Constitutionalist" than anything, and the Libertarian party is about as close of an ideology as you can get to returning this country back to its roots.............

There are many many parties out there that you may find more appealing than the Libertarian Party...search the following website, it gives a thorough list of American political parties:
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/PartyLink.htm

It`s title says "minor" political parties, but they are ALL there. Republicans, Democrats, everybody...

 

[Higher Game]

Having people vote directly for foreign conflicts is a BAD idea. We would have been at war with every Arab country the day after 9-11 if that was available. It's good if you mean the people can vote their way out of a serious conflict (Vietnam, probably), but not start a war with any country at a whim.

 

[Double Barrel]

John-LP - Appreciate the heads up. But I vote straight-ticket Libertarian...I'm just not a card-carrying member (anymore). People have strange misconceptions about the Libertarian party, thats for sure.

I've had many people tell me that I'm "throwing my vote away" when I don't vote Dem/Rep. But, IMHO, I would be throwing it away if I didn't use it, and I always vote in every election (even the little ones.)

Higher Game - yeah, I should've been more specific....I definitely don't want the public choosing who/when to go to war, but rather have veto power over any proposed actions with our military. It might be utopian dream and not work in the real world, but I like to think that it would work in spite of it all.

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by John-LP

Libertarian Socialist doesnt sound right

Socialists want to redistribute wealth from rich and give it to poor people, even without the consent of the rich...certainly not a Libertarian view...

Yeah, but I understand what he means. What I like (and a lot of people) about Libertarianism is the individual freedom. But the total economic freedom that Libertarianism propagizes is not something I (along with most people) support. There should be some social provisions for the poor. So a mix of Libertarianism (individual freedom) and Socialism (social provisions) would be really great.

 

[Jeratain]

I'm an independent. I tend to lean on the moderate/liberal spectrem.

 

[MrPresident]

Liberal Democrat with strong Republican ideals. That one always confuses the Americans.

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Cimbri
I tried to figure out where I would fit on the poll. But since I don’t know how I could compare my party to any American one, I just took the test on the Libertarian Party Site John had in his link.

Look where I ended up

Wow, and I thought I knew who you voted for... Hmm... looks like we'll need to lock you up. I'll just call some friends of mine within the party. It'll just be a couple of minutes before they get there...

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by addiv


Yeah, but I understand what he means. What I like (and a lot of people) about Libertarianism is the individual freedom. But the total economic freedom that Libertarianism propagizes is not something I (along with most people) support. There should be some social provisions for the poor. So a mix of Libertarianism (individual freedom) and Socialism (social provisions) would be really great.

Indeed

 

[Toasty]

I put down Socialist. I think I've been here long enough that doing so doesn't merit an explanation...

 

[metalhead]

Libertarians have as many votes as Democrats? All right, we're doing better than I ever could have hoped!

 

[metalhead]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Liberal Democrat with strong Republican ideals. That one always confuses the Americans.

Not really. We mostly just ignore your ridiculous form of government

 

[kojimanard]

I see a number of you expressing liberterian inclinations. I have been a member of the Cato institute for many years. It has a liberterian bend, but is very pragmatic, not ideological.

http://www.cato.org/

 

[HAND]

Independent.. I'll steal the good ideas from the other idealogies and create my own..

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Toasty
I put down Socialist. I think I've been here long enough that doing so doesn't merit an explanation...

You always sounded more communist to me

Im a socialiist.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by metalhead
Not really. We mostly just ignore your ridiculous form of government

That is exactly what the American tourists outside of Buckingham Palace say.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by addiv
Yeah, but I understand what he means. What I like (and a lot of people) about Libertarianism is the individual freedom. But the total economic freedom that Libertarianism propagizes is not something I (along with most people) support. There should be some social provisions for the poor. So a mix of Libertarianism (individual freedom) and Socialism (social provisions) would be really great.

Yep, that's what I meant.
I'm in favour of allowing everything that doesn't restrict someone else's freedom, including such strange things as public nudity, all kinds of drugs, etc.
On the other hand I think that giving one person too much economic freedom does restrict the personal freedoms of more than one other person much more. Redistributed wealth (the amount of redistribution is debateable) grants in my view more personal freedom to the people as a whole than factual survival of the richest.

 

[allan2]

Libertarian.

DoubleBarrel, I LIKE your idea of a referendum needed to approve a war--a friend of mine also brought up this idea, and the more I think of it the more I like it, in principle. War is something that affects people on a profound individual level--many have family or friends who serve in the military, and I think they deserve to have more of a say than they do in where they're sent, what they're used for, and whether or not the potential rewards of the action are worth the danger they could face--particularly in an era where our wars aren't PRIMARILY acts of defense, although there might be a small peripheral argument in that vein.

Of course, in situations where there is a sudden need for a quick response (say, someone launches a nuclear strike at us), you couldn't do it. But a long-premeditated, well-deliberated action such as the Iraq war? It could be done in those situations. In principle I like it--the details would need to be worked out some though. It would actually involve amending the Constitution, I believe.

***

As for my libertarian thinking, I also realize that a minimal, as non-intrusive-as-possible government can't and won't be done overnight. I'm interested in mainly trying to shift the emphasis of popular debate away from the "left-right", Dem-Rep dichotomy that has become largely meaningless and insubstantial in this country, and toward a "more government-less government" dichotomy. I think that the people that see government getting too big don't know where to turn in terms of the two main parties--BOTH will continue to expand the government. If we can continue to press the debate toward the dichotomy that would address this issue, by speaking out, we might actually have politicians making genuine efforts to do something about the problem.

A thousand-mile journey begins with one step.