# Name your political identity



## Lovesick Loner (Oct 19, 2009)

Just curious to see what everyone's political views are. I'm curious to see if there's any correlation whatsoever with political leanings and SA. I'm going to leave out Democrat/Republican because they're all over the place and that's sometimes too general to say you belong to one of those parties.


----------



## Micronian (Nov 11, 2004)

it'll be the usual cross sections of political leanings, with the majority being in the liberal camp and the next largest in the conservative camp.

I don't think there is much correlation with SA and politics, only because politics (and its discussion) is a social activity in itself. Most people with SA would shy away from it.

Personally, I would think communism would be right up the alley for SAers, simply because their choices would be so limited that they'd have no anxieties about choosing, as well as have their meds paid for.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 1, 2009)

There is no socialist option, so I didn't vote.


----------



## march_hare (Jan 18, 2006)

"Real-life Anarchist"?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm a libertarian (small 'l').

The Libertarian Party is a joke and even I know it. They've been around since I think 1970 and the highest office any LP member has yet to achieve was state rep in Alaska, the most libertarian state in the nation. Well, Ron Paul might actually be the highest office winner of anyone from the LP -- they can put an "R" behind his name, as that brand sells much better, but anybody who's actually listened to him for more than a minute surely knows he's very much a libertarian.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Question: what exactly is this "Social Liberal" choice?

Is this for a left-winger who doesn't care about economic issues?:stu


----------



## lyssado707 (Oct 29, 2004)

Being liberal feels best to me.


----------



## rcapo89 (Jun 3, 2009)

I consider myself an Anarchist! :yes

http://infoshop.org/faq/


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> Question: what exactly is this "Social Liberal" choice?
> 
> Is this for a left-winger who doesn't care about economic issues?:stu


It's what people in America confuse with socialism, due to demagogues using hyperbole in an effort to confuse and worry the public by misrepresenting current democratic rhetoric. It distinguishes between positive and negative rights. Negative rights are freedom from government. Positive rights are rights or freedom to some service, such as welfare, healthcare, education, and so on (what people in the United States pejoratively call "entitlements" and "handouts"). It's basically the idea that laissez-faire capitalism is a threat to real freedom, and that positive rights can help remedy the problems for freedom that laissez-faire capitalism causes. 
*
*


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Cerberus said:


> Negative rights are freedom from government.


I like negative then.



Cerberus said:


> Positive rights are rights or freedom to some service, such as welfare, healthcare, education, and so on (what people in the United States pejoratively call "entitlements" and "handouts").


Problem: to provide such "rights" government must redistribute using coercion & force. Those getting free goodies may see it as a right; those having their assets taken from them by force, as you can imagine, may not see it the same.


----------



## LS1Transam (Nov 13, 2009)

I put myself down as a moderate because I'm a registered Independant, but I'm starting to lean more and more towards being a conservative. And yes cerberus, I call those "postive rights" entitlements because I believe we live in a country where you can get _whatever_ you want if you're willing to work for it, but some people find it easier to look to the government for help.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> I like negative then.
> 
> Problem: to provide such "rights" government must redistribute using coercion & force. Those getting free goodies may see it as a right; those having their assets taken from them by force, as you can imagine, may not see it the same.


Most rich people were born into that kind of lifestyle with all the privileges that help them stay that way (good education, already having money to make money, or things you call "free goodies"). Moreover, many people do not earn the talents they have. They were born with them and/or raised to be good at something by having a good environment for their talents to prosper. These aren't choices. They're arbitrary advantages. Seeing that rich people largely have not fully earned their assets because of the aforementioned, it is questionable if they are fully there's.

Social Liberalism seeks to remedy these arbitrary advantages or disadvantages people are born with or raised with, thus facilitating more freedom for people to pursue the things they want to. Those who are innately talented would be less likely to have that talent suffocated in an environment that does not encourage one to better one's talents or to develop any at all that would be advantageous in a capitalistic society. And those who are not born talented, could have a better environment to develop some skill to make money.

People do not reside in vacuums and are largely products of their genetics and environment, so these aforementioned positive rights could help remedy the inherent unfair advantages and disadvantages that people arbitrarily receive in laissez-faire capitalistic societies.


----------



## kindasorta (Apr 20, 2009)

Maybe I should have skipped the "Social liberal" and claim socialism instead. I'm very left wing by US standards. But not as much by Swedish standards, still I lean to the left side here aswell.


----------



## knuckles17 (Jun 27, 2009)

i am none of them i made my own country religion and animals and none may come!!!

well maybe vince with the shamwow

BUT NOT BILLY MAYS!


----------



## LS1Transam (Nov 13, 2009)

> Moreover, many people do not earn the talents they have. They were born with them and/or raised to be good at something by having a good environment for their talents to prosper. These aren't choices.


I don't believe people are born good at something, talent is something you aquire. Obviously some people are smarter than others, but someone isn't born being a good mechanic, carpenter, electrician, etc...


> Social Liberalism seeks to remedy these arbitrary advantages or disadvantages people are born with or raised with, thus facilitating more freedom for people to pursue the things they want to. Those who are innately talented would be less likely to have that talent suffocated in an environment that does not encourage one to better one's talents or to develop any at all that would be advantageous in a capitalistic society. And those who are not born talented, could have a better environment to develop some skill to make money.


In my opinion, it's arrogant to say that someone is better off than me simply because life gave him special advantages. In this country, you can have almost anything you want depending on how much you are willing to work for it. Sure we all need help occasionally, but that help should come entirely through someones charity and free will, not by some government program. 


> People do not reside in vacuums and are largely products of their genetics and environment, so these aforementioned positive rights could help remedy the inherent unfair advantages and disadvantages that people arbitrarily receive in laissez-faire capitalistic societies.


This is my big issue with the socialistic perspective. By allowing people to blame their personal situation on their environment and genetics is a "blame everyone else" mentality. If your environment is holding you back, change your environment, dont wait for someone else to do it for you. Of course you can't change your genetics, but you can make the best with what you have.


----------



## My911GT2993 (May 14, 2009)

Is their a general way a country works, and then the two/three sub-catagories??? Not sure, but I'll be either over generalising or over stupid: DEMOCRACY


----------



## Steve123 (Sep 13, 2009)

I took a quiz once that showed where I was on some scale (difficult to explain) and apparently I'm a "social libertarian" (might sound like a contradiction to some) but very close to the centre. 

But to be honest, these days I'm kind of apathetic, more worried about my personal problems than society's.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Cerberus said:


> Seeing that rich people largely have not fully earned their assets because of the aforementioned, it is questionable if they are fully there's.


Even if we started from a position of total economic equality, you'd soon end up with inequality as some people are simply going to work harder, be smarter, or just plain get lucky (like a guy who wins a huge lottery or stumbles upon some great new invention by chance). Some will prudently save & invest, while others will buy fancy cars, jewelry and a hundred pairs of shoes, etc... Without constant government intervention equality will eventually revert back to substantial economic inequality. But how can one say that such inequality is wrong, when they are started on equal footing? What did they do that was wrong? If you have a fair start, and everything they do is fair, then the outcome would seem to be by definition fair, even if it turns out quite unequal.

Nature, you've surely noticed, isn't equal. Some people can run marathons. There is no way I could make it 26 miles. Some people are smart enough to join Mensa. I'm in the other 98% that aren't smart enough to get in that door.

And you also bring up the issue of property rights. If one is the owner of something then they should be able to do with it as they wish, including giving it to their heirs which would result in inequality. Yet if you restrict what they can do with their assets then you water down the concept of ownership.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Moderate leaning towards conservative.


----------



## Toad Licker (Nov 2, 2007)

Left leaning libertarian.


----------



## Weoh (Nov 22, 2009)

I chose "real-life anarchist", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am sympathetic to most left-libertarian strains of political thought: Automism, Situationism, left Marxism, libertarian socialism, communalism, collectivism, most strands of anarchism, postanarchism, etc.

I also get along fairly well with some market libertarians of the Rothbardian persuasion, even though I disagree with many of their fundamental assumptions.


----------



## rcapo89 (Jun 3, 2009)

Four people on this site consider themselves Fascists/Nationalists?! :sus


----------



## dax (Nov 19, 2004)

You forgot to add in the ideology I subscribe to: militant anti-politicism. And I don't mean that I am apathetic, I have just realized over the years that politics is all pretty much bull**** and all sides lie and propagandize and the only way to save your political soul is to realize this and reject politics completely. I'm not anti-government or ultra-libertarian, or anarchist. I just choose not to play the game. The goverment should be run by technical people or something who have term limits of like 6 years or something. Like people say religion should be kept out of goverment, I think politics should be kept out of goverment too. Governing should be less about power and more about performance for the people. I guess it's also the detachment I have from society in general due to my SA and depression and BDD etc. that makes me reject the game of politics and all its players.


----------



## rcapo89 (Jun 3, 2009)

dax said:


> You forgot to add in the ideology I subscribe to: militant anti-politicism. And I don't mean that I am apathetic, I have just realized over the years that politics is all pretty much bull**** and all sides lie and propagandize and the only way to save your political soul is to realize this and reject politics completely. I'm not anti-government or ultra-libertarian, or anarchist. I just choose not to play the game. The goverment should be run by technical people or something who have term limits of like 6 years or something. *Like people say religion should be kept out of goverment, I think politics should be kept out of goverment too. Governing should be less about power and more about performance for the people.* I guess it's also the detachment I have from society in general due to my SA and depression and BDD etc. that makes me reject the game of politics and all its players.


In my opinion it's impossible to separate politics from government. The lure of power is far too great. Government gives a small group of people power and control over the masses. Leaders must either use force or the political system to remain in power.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

rcapo89 said:


> Four people on this site consider themselves Fascists/Nationalists?! :sus


Wouldn't Hitler have fit into that category?


----------



## rcapo89 (Jun 3, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> Wouldn't Hitler have fit into that category?


Yes Hitler was a fascist, more specifically a Nazi. Apparently four people on this site are fascists. :no


----------



## Squid24 (Nov 23, 2009)

rcapo89 said:


> Yes Hitler was a fascist, more specifically a Nazi. Apparently four people on this site are fascists. :no


Usually if you give people the opportunity to say something stupid/ridiculous in a poll, some will. I hope it is such a case of people just kidding.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

UltraShy said:


> Even if we started from a position of total economic equality, you'd soon end up with inequality as some people are simply going to work harder, be smarter, or just plain get lucky (like a guy who wins a huge lottery or stumbles upon some great new invention by chance). Some will prudently save & invest, while others will buy fancy cars, jewelry and a hundred pairs of shoes, etc... Without constant government intervention equality will eventually revert back to substantial economic inequality. But how can one say that such inequality is wrong, when they are started on equal footing? What did they do that was wrong? If you have a fair start, and everything they do is fair, then the outcome would seem to be by definition fair, even if it turns out quite unequal.


That's my point. Things do not start out fair in the first place. People arbitrarily are born predisposed toward being better at some things than other. They didn't chose this predisposition (i.e. they didn't chose to be smart or stupid or they didn't chose to be good with coordination or not or something along those lines). They didn't chose the environment in which they were raised (something that can obviously impact one's adulthood to a great extent). Consequently, people don't start out on equal footing, so inequality is not entirely morally justified. The second consequence of this is that it's morally questionable whether what they apparently earned is entirely and morally justifiably there's.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

LS1Transam said:


> I don't believe people are born good at something, talent is something you aquire. Obviously some people are smarter than others, but someone isn't born being a good mechanic, carpenter, electrician, etc...


Quite right. People aren't born with a wrench in hand ready to be a plumber or something else. They are, however, born predisposed to being better at some things than others that can be suffocated or encouraged while being raised. An obvious example would be the person who is going to be short (say, under 5'5"), so no matter how hard that person is willing to work he's probably not going to be some great basketball player. You might say he could just do something else that he might be good at, but that's not always the case and being raised in an environment that is not conducive to personal growth can greatly discourage and mitigate whatever potential one may have.



> In my opinion, it's arrogant to say that someone is better off than me simply because life gave him special advantages. In this country, you can have almost anything you want depending on how much you are willing to work for it. Sure we all need help occasionally, but that help should come entirely through someones charity and free will, not by some government program.


People can work as hard as they want, but it's a myth that all one needs to do is work hard and they'll get what they want. Natural abilities and a good upbringing go a long way toward making all that work worth a damn.



> This is my big issue with the socialistic perspective. By allowing people to blame their personal situation on their environment and genetics is a "blame everyone else" mentality. If your environment is holding you back, change your environment, dont wait for someone else to do it for you. Of course you can't change your genetics, but you can make the best with what you have.


You mean the social liberal perspective. It's not about blaming things, it's about realizing factors that greatly impact personal growth and not living in a fantasy land where everyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just work hard enough.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

I call myself a social liberal.
I believe in and support free people, not the free market. I'm quite anti-capitalist really, but I realise it's a system that's likely not going away.


Cerberus said:


> You mean the social liberal perspective. It's not about blaming things, it's about realizing factors that greatly impact personal growth and not living in a fantasy land where everyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just work hard enough.


This is actually a quite interesting thing. I mailed back and forth with a good friend of mine about this some time ago actually (we're both kinda nerdy about this, but have different views)
Allow me to quote myself... xD


> Who can you blame for your misfortunes in a just society? The answer is obviously that you only have yourself to blame.
> Maybe you chose poorly on the opportunities you had, maybe you didn't create the chances for yourself or maybe a psychological or physical condition made you simply unable to achieve the things you wanted. Throughout history people have often placed blame on a figure or group disconnected from themselves that made it easier to handle the defeat and easier to explain their situation. If you know your lower status is fully justified, you no longer have this solution of explaining it by referring to an unfair society. You are not only poor, alone and in a poor job because you're doing too little to change it.. You are so because you're doing less than everyone above you. This seems to be the basic idea behind modern individuality. Anything you create, you deserve, and those without anything, haven't deserved to get anything.
> ...
> While the people with lower status might see the injustices in the society that made their paths harder and made them more prone to fail, the people who are better off may see the society as fair and now, rather than "I have only myself to blame for my failures", it becomes "I only blame you for your failures." In effect shedding any responsibility for anyone besides myself, and lulling me with a false sense of self-righteousness; I'm not doing anything wrong by doing all I can to secure my own prosperity and if other people are 'abused' in the process it's their fault for being weaker.
> ...


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I know what I am, but I don't fit into any party. I would take small bits from each of those groups to make the best possible decision.

Conservative: You need to have some order and moral rules so people aren't causing emotional damage today that they will regret tomorrow.

Moderate: This is where everyone should be. Everyone needs to figure things out for themselves. And a middle of the road approach is usually the safest and best.

Social Liberal/Socialist: There should be a safety net. And I shouldn't have to work everyday of my life. We can be a better country if we helped each other out and didn't get bent out of shape because they would rather pay a private company $1000/year for the same healthcare that $400/year would buy in a government backed/run & efficient universal system.

Libertarian: Government does try too hard to fix problems sometimes, and causes other problems. The government does need to work on closing some large agencies and departments that aren't working as good as the private sector. They just need to come up with a easy way to do this.

Communism: If you look at the 'communist' Federation in Star Trek, you will see how it is supposed to work. Everyone has what they need, and they all only take what they need. In the healthcare area, it's not like I am going to get unneeded treatments for the fun of it. But, I would rather 'force' people into healthy lifestyles than pay for more healthcare for these people when they damage their bodies by their own doing. Vaccines are more common instead of treating the symptoms for life (because there is more money in the never-ending illness). And cars can be built to last 50-100 years instead of out of cheap materials that rust away in 8-10. Society is more efficient when information/data is free as well. The political side of communism is pretty bad however and most have been dictatorships. And scaling this up isn't alway easy. It works better for small groups or cities. 

Anarchism: There is more to life than being a cog in the machine. We shouldn't be sold and work as slaves to corporations that control the government.

Nationalism: You can't help everyone. The foreigners need to be able to fight their own fights and improve their own living conditions.

Green: Reducing energy, cleaning up the environment, and renewable energy (that individuals own) are the keys to having a good lifestyle and not having to worry about paying power bills.


----------



## slaughter in the vatican (Nov 25, 2008)

Marxist/Communist. One of _those_ people.

That's a good breakdown of political beliefs, Classified.


----------



## brainfog (Mar 1, 2005)

Cerberus said:


> Most rich people were born into that kind of lifestyle with all the privileges that help them stay that way (good education, already having money to make money, or things you call "free goodies").
> 
> Social Liberalism seeks to remedy these arbitrary advantages or disadvantages people are born with or raised with, thus facilitating more freedom for people to pursue the things they want to.
> 
> People do not reside in vacuums and are largely products of their genetics and environment, so these aforementioned positive rights could help remedy the inherent unfair advantages and disadvantages that people arbitrarily receive in laissez-faire capitalistic societies.


That is simply not true Cerberus, you are generalising. There are a lot of rich people who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, who had a rough upbringing and did not have very good schooling but still went on to make something of themselves, and in turn they have employed other people so that they can feed their families and put a roof over their heads.

It is almost as if socialists don't like individual success, they seek to punish those who are prepared to take risks and make something of themselves, they feel they are entitled to some of that success themselves but are not prepared to do anything for it. Don't forget that those individuals are the ones who keep the world turning, without them we wouldn't enjoy all the privileges we have.


----------



## LS1Transam (Nov 13, 2009)

> You might say he could just do something else that he might be good at, but that's not always the case and being raised in an environment that is not conducive to personal growth can greatly discourage and mitigate whatever potential one may have.
> 
> People can work as hard as they want, but it's a myth that all one needs to do is work hard and they'll get what they want. Natural abilities and a good upbringing go a long way toward making all that work worth a damn.


A good upbrining and natural abilities do go a long way, no one can dispute that, but determination can go a long way as well. I believe that your success in achieving a goal is directly proportional to how hard you're willing to work for it. Sure you can work incredibly hard and still fail, but if you dont work hard for it then you have no excuses.


> You mean the social liberal perspective. It's not about blaming things, it's about realizing factors that greatly impact personal growth and not living in a fantasy land where everyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just work hard enough.


I can't speak for other cultures, but in the US you can pull yourself up by your bootstrap if you have a strong desire to do so. Although people, just like electricity will take the path of least resistance. If you offer most disadvantaged people an alternative to hardwork like welfare or government housing, they'll take the latter.


----------



## SuperSaiyan (Dec 8, 2009)

I went with communist but I mean socialist, I don't know much about it but it's about fairness and equality, right?


----------



## TRENNER (Sep 21, 2009)

I am a registered Democrat here in NYC. I'd classify myself overall as moderate left of center.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

SuperSaiyan said:


> I went with communist but I mean socialist, I don't know much about it but *it's about fairness* and equality, right?


What political view would be about unfairness?:stu I'm a libertarian and I'd contend it's about fairness.

Libertarianism is even about equality in the sense of a level playing field, though we don't concern ourselves with equal outcomes as socialists/communists do.


----------



## lyricalillusions (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm a registered democrat, but I wish I didn't have to register as anything & could just _vote._ I might register as Independent, though I'm not sure. I lean between liberal & very liberal on 90% or more of all issues.
I chose libertarian because that encompasses my views more than the others listed.


----------



## Xeros (Oct 19, 2006)

Liberal through and through. I believe in personal freedom and even economic grounds. Not economic equality, even grounds. AKA, no massive corporations paying a smaller percentage in taxes than small businesses. I'm a registered independent because I don't want anyone viewing my registration and deciding what I believe before they actuall talk to me.


One note on libertarianism. I think it's just Anarchism disguised. It's a protest party. They like to tell the other parties that they're wrong, but never actually have any ideas for themselves other than "little government".

I'd like to see school systems, roads, police, firefighters, and other government functions work under a minimal government intervention system. It'd be a cluster****.


----------



## ryobi (Jan 13, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> Problem: to provide such "rights" government must redistribute using coercion & force. Those getting free goodies may see it as a right; those having their assets taken from them by force, as you can imagine, may not see it the same.


No kidding, in a coastal community I live near, in Washington State, Big California development companies came to the coast and told the residents building condo's and other developments would result in like 265 new jobs. Which was great news, since unemployment in our area ranks amongst the highest in the nation. Then the development companies hired a construction crew from Nevada or somewhere-lol :roll.

But the town council approved the developments, which included bonds to upgrade the water sytem to support the new infrastructure. In other words, every resident had to pay taxes to build the devolpoments new infrastructure.

But some, whose families had lived in the area for generations, could not pay the additional taxes and had to move. It worked out for the developers though, because they bought those properties at rock bottom prices too .

Ironically, I'm not against development at all, I'm against unfair business practicess though.

Fortunately, the morgtage crises has kind of been kind of like our devine wind...lol.


----------



## rcapo89 (Jun 3, 2009)

Xeros said:


> One note on libertarianism. I think it's just Anarchism disguised. It's a protest party. They like to tell the other parties that they're wrong, but never actually have any ideas for themselves other than "little government".


When you say libertarianism do you mean this? http://www.lp.org/

This is NOT Anarchism, this is. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html


----------



## Xeros (Oct 19, 2006)

rcapo89 said:


> When you say libertarianism do you mean this? http://www.lp.org/
> 
> This is NOT Anarchism, this is. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html


I know the difference, I just believe their close to the same thing depending on which self proclaimed libertarian you're talking to.


----------

