Chocolate, cookies and cream, but no mint.
Political Ideologies of Fellow Civvers
- Thread starter ShahJahanII
- Start date
Chocolate, cookies and cream, but no mint.
anandus
Errorist
Here in the Netherlands the liberals are the 'liberal party', the laissez-faire party. The employers (and rich(er) people's) party.
Small government, less rights for employees, as least amount of social security (or none), etc.
Actually quite true to the original 19th century industrialists kind of liberals (in a modern form of course), I think.
I never fully understood why American liberals are called that as to me the conservative hold more liberal values than the 'liberals'. Like a small government, cutting social security, etc.
But I guess the American system, being more a theocracy, must be viewed from a more Christian moral viewpoint. With conservative morals and liberal morals. And not having at all to do with political ideologies, but more with theological ideologies?
By that definition the Netherlands is indeed pretty liberal. Although the three Christian parties still hold 27 of the 150 seats, so there's still some Christian conservatism left.
But if you'd look at the Netherlands from a left-right standpoint, than the Netherlands is definitely a rightist country.
Since the second world war the left (social-democrats, socialists, greens, etc) never have had a majority (as far as I know).
My social views are as said based on sustainability, which would mean a less lenient way to go about social security issues than most social-democrats, but not as stringent as liberals.
Social security to me is a means of a last resort, only to be used in emergencies and not as a casual pit stop. (As somebody put it "social securiy is a safety net, not a hammock")
Of course everyone does have the right to social security, it's a fundamental cornerstone of a healthy society, but not longer than absolutely necessary. Which might also mean a shorter duration of unemployment benefits and a raise in the age of retirement (to, say, 70).
Also, if somebody is 'out of the loop' on a longer term, be it either out of (partial) disability, not being able to find work, or something else, then there should be oppertunities to get someone 'back in the loop ', by for instance offering someone scholing for a different sector or suited (temporary) social work (see it as reciprocity to the community). Either way, just sitting at home isn't an option, nobody gains from that, not the individual nor society.
On scholing I have a very meritocracy based view, but based on equal oppertunity. So on one hand everyone needs to be given the oppertunity to get the most out of him or herself (which means equal oppertunity for scholing for everyone as needed) but on the other hand the room for development and excellence.
Not the 'standard form factor' scholing there is now, but a more indivual approach.
Basically it's: Everyone has the right to the same oppertunities and possibilities, everyone needs to participate and there should be room for self-development and excellence (in school or work).
On more moral questions it's also a left-liberal approach: everyone has the right to (within the law) do or don't as they wish.
If you're for abortion, you should be able to have them, if you're against abortion you should be able not to have them (as long as it's not threatening the health of the mother of course). Same goes for euthenesia: If you're for a voluntary ending of life you should have the right. If you're against you should have the right not to choose euthenasia. As a shopowner closing the shop on a religious day of preference? You should be able to have the right to do that. Want your shop open seven days a week. No problem.
There is one fundamental thing: The liberal society and the freedom of the individual.
No one should dictate to other people, based on their own ideology, what other people should do. Everyone has the right to do themselves as they please, but does not have the right to dictate others. (like christians dictating other people to not have abortions, muslims dictating other women to wear headscarves, Jews dictating other people to close their shops on saturday, vegetarians dictating other people not to eat meat, etc.)
Or course there are some interesting social questions on the fringes.
For instance, I noticed myself I have a hard time coming to terms with the question of prohibition of burqa's in public, and I'm still undecided to be honest.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Conservative. Once you get past the eccentric epistemology, the atheism and the self-aggrandising bluster, Rand's politics were decidedly mundane.
Link to video.
I'm sympathetic to both social democracy and left-libertarianism, which is something of a contradiction, I suppose. After I began working in a factory, my politics moved steadily left, and that's only increased as the years have gone by...although I'm not much for ideology, and the issues I'm most concerned about are ones the national parties are ignoring, and they're not matters that even fall neatly onto one side of a liberal/conservative divide.
That said, I despise conservatism and traditionalism on principle. Defend something you can define and articulate -- don't just hold on to it because it's all you know. If conservatives had their way we'd still be living in wattle and daub huts practicing slavery.
That said, I despise conservatism and traditionalism on principle. Defend something you can define and articulate -- don't just hold on to it because it's all you know. If conservatives had their way we'd still be living in wattle and daub huts practicing slavery.
Quackers
The Frog
ppl call me an eval white fascatoid 
It's kind of a historical accident. Back in the day the people who were trying to use government to make the country a better place were called the progressives. But that label fell out of use because negative connotations became attached to it. So some people switched to using the label liberal instead. And that stuck, though it has substantially fallen out of favor now as well.
muhtesem insan
Amateur Revolutionary
She would be somewhere between liberal and conservative with more leaning to conservative.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Eh, Lassalle made Marx vomit blood, but they were both socialists. You can share a political orientation without being able to share a polite conversation.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Fiscally I'm conservative. I'm not the ultimate conservative, I do believe in limited welfare, but I think it should be as locally run as possible, and limited in how much you can take.
Socially I tend towards libertarian ideas, but am fiercely opposed to abortion and moderate on gay unions.
Independent.
Socially I tend towards libertarian ideas, but am fiercely opposed to abortion and moderate on gay unions.
Independent.
anandus
Errorist
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
This is not true.
In the 19th century the Democrats, from Thomas Jefferson to Grover Cleveland, were liberals in the classical sense - believers in liberty. They opposed the Whigs (and later the Republicans) who were the party of big business and special interests. For example, when Lincoln came to power he massively increased tariffs to force people to buy from his cronies in Northern industry instead of cheap foreign goods. Similarly he gave out huge concessions to the railroads to build lines to the Pacific.
In the 19th century people understood that the only way that ordinary people can defend themselves from the depredations of the wealthy and well-connected is through fighting for liberty for all and keeping the government as small as possible. Thus the democrats were the liberals, the party of the ordinary people.
In 1896, the Democratic party was hijacked by Progressives and has remained in their hands ever since. The Progressive argues that the way to prevent the influence of the wealthy and well-connected is to use the government to keep them in line. It's nonsense, of course. The purpose of the state is enable the wealthy and well-connected to steal from the general populace in a legal fashion.
Even so the Progressives claimed to be party of the people, which historically the Democratic party had been. Thus the word liberal gradually came to be a synonym for Progressive. A very different kind of party of the people, but one that still made its old claims. This is even more clear in Canada where the party which was hijacked is called the "Liberal Party".
In places like Britain where the Progressives founded their own party (Labour) instead of taking one over, the word Liberal retained its original meaning. I believe this is also true in most of continental Europe.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Don't forget that the Republicans were the ones who opposed slavery.
They turned their backs on that fast enough.
Quackers
The Frog
opposing AA = the new slavery
if ya didn't get the memo
if ya didn't get the memo
opposing AA = the new slavery
if ya didn't get the memo
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/
Reconstruction never did a lot for black people.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Uh, no, the GOP has always been against slavery.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
I was listening to some podcasts about the Rand circle and its craziness, especially with her time with Branden. They didn't want anyone "stealing" Rand's ideas and never allowed any debate. I listened to Walter Block talk about his time with Rand once and I think that's one of the things that got him to quit the Rand circle.Yea. She didn't believe in taxes but did believe in a strong government. Now that's a combo that'll work.
Have you read anything by David D. Friedman?
(to others: David is Milton Friedman's son, but an anarcho-capitalist. However, Friedman is not part of the Austrian school like Rothbard, Block, Hans Hoppe, etc.)
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Ummm. No. A small part of the party was anti-slave. The biggest portion, including Lincoln, were fully in the tradition of Hamilton and Henry Clay.
Contrary to popular belief, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves. It was a cynical political move whose purpose was to undermine the Confederacy. In that regard, it worked admirably. Among other things, it completely eliminated any possibility of the British and the French intervening on the side of the South. Both countries were angered by the Union blockade and tended to sympathize with the South.
Similar threads
