Are you Conservative or a Liberal?

[Shepherd57]

I am libertarian.

[Frozen Death Knight]

I know for certain that this chart is not correct in regards to myself. By Swedish standards I am not a left aligned libertarian. I disagree with too many things with those kinds of politics in my country that I simply cannot be one. Plus, by American standards even the more hardcore right political parties would be too much on the left.

This test honestly needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Bridgetjones]

There's a lot of comments to the effect of "you can't call yourself liberal or conservative." On a personal level those distinctions matter, but not on a political level. When you vote in a 2-party system, you're picking a liberal or a conservative. A Republican in Massachussetts is to the left of a Democrat in Oklahoma. However, voting for a left-wing Republican is still a vote for conservatism because voting-bloc majorities, committee majorities, and speakership matter SO MUCH in the US Congress.

At least in the U.S., it's almost always political ignorance that says you can vote across party lines or vote for a specific candidate despite their party affiliation. If you're pro-choice, you're better off voting for the anti-abortion Democrat than you are voting for the pro-choice Republican.

My core issues are minority rights, gun control, anti-war foreign policy, access to healthcare, lower college tuition, and lower taxes on the middle class. So I vote blue no matter what. The candidate could be a Baptist preacher who wants to decapitate gays, and I'd still vote for him because senate majority and house speakership matter more than one bad apple's vote. Plus, the parties have ways of leveraging lockstep voting.

[Shepherd57]

Actually incorrect.

Republicans want a large government, even more so than the Democrats, they just want it to be a Military National Socialist system where all adults join the military serve bravely and gain access to social services. This doesn't reduce the size of government, and it doesn't reduce the deficit.

Democrats want to reduce Military spending and extend social benefits to everyone equally.

Libertarians are very different from Republicans and democrats, want no taxes, no real government, no regulated equality, with no enforced inequality.

Most tea party people are Theocratic Fascists, they want the Military Socialism, with Libertarian ideals, while promoting a Religious based Legal system not unlike Sharia law in Islamic nations.

A little hyperbole in all of those, but I essentially agree. The only thing the conservatives want to shrink is social benefit spending.

[Wilian]

I don't identify as any specific group and to be honest, anyone who feels like they need to identify with a group is quite a black and white person to begin with.

Pick the best from all of the stuff and if you need name for it, call it "common sense"

[GreatOak]

Actually incorrect.

Republicans want a large government, even more so than the Democrats, they just want it to be a Military National Socialist system where all adults join the military serve bravely and gain access to social services. This doesn't reduce the size of government, and it doesn't reduce the deficit.

Democrats want to reduce Military spending and extend social benefits to everyone equally.

Libertarians are very different from Republicans and democrats, want no taxes, no real government, no regulated equality, with no enforced inequality.

Most tea party people are Theocratic Fascists, they want the Military Socialism, with Libertarian ideals, while promoting a Religious based Legal system not unlike Sharia law in Islamic nations.

Just as there is more than one type of socialist there is more than one type of Libertarian. To be one you just have to believe in the core principles. Anarcho-Capitalists are just a large minority of libertarians. You're right though in one sense. We don't want enforced inequality or regulated equality. We believe in non-aggression, an emphasis on liberty , an emphasis on free markets, and other true liberal ideals.

[Gothicshark]

Let's first give up all pretense that 'communist nations' have ever been communist. The main flaw of communism is that it doesn't work, after all. In our current (and previous) global economy, a communist system would simply instantly transform into a totalitarian regime with communist-ish regulations.
Even so, yes, there were pockets of people who were outside of the social system. What matters for this discussion is: Was this intentional? If it was, indeed, intentional, then I posit that it was NOT socialism.

Listen; the main difference between our opinions is this: You label something as you were told to label it. I look at results and intentions, and analyse whether or not it FITS the label. Fascism does not fit the label 'socialism' because it intentionally excludes populations. The premise of socialism was inclusive; the goal is to grant everyone equal opportunity (and in some cases, equal wealth... But not in all; it is not a hallmark of socialism in and of itself. Socialism is the political regulation of public services to make sure everyone, regardless of wealth or caste, has the same chances in life. Communism takes it a step further by trying to turn all production and service endeavors into a publicly owned property (which should, in theory, equalize wealth for all). Social democracy is a combination of socialist ideals with a democratic system of politics; it could even apply to a democratically run system of communism (but doesn't, in practice, because no such thing exists). It could also apply to libertarian socialism, which proposes a financially regulated, but otherwise free, market economy with publicly funded public services and social security.
Also: No; I do not have a degree in social sciences. I chose linguistics, and specialized in theology and psychology (though I only really learned the lingo (not as much the theory) for those specializations at Uni).
Nevertheless, I make mistakes. With the higher temperatures, the amount of spelling, syntax and grammatical errors I make have risen substantially. I do not consider myself flawless in the field of linguistics; not by a long shot.

I see the problem here, you think that Fascism didn't do what Socialism did. I like to use the Term Military Socialism, the USA has had this Since the Veterans Administration was created. It grants 100% equality of social services to all Veterans with hierarchy system of line placement based on service merit. ie a Service connected Veteran gets to go before a Non-Service connected veteran. in your definition this would not count as a social service. But under the strict definition of social service it is, and it is designed to be a merit based social system. In every Fascist nation they used a Merit based Social system, it granted 100% benefits and equality to all citizens based on Merit. This is well documented and provable. The problem is that the rise to power of a Fascist nation requires the removal of everyone who is deemed not worthy of being a citizen. These people are killed, deported, or used as slave labor. This is actually no different from what happens in a communist nation, during the rise to power the Soviets murdered everyone who they felt was responsible for the previous system of government, this included Clergy, Rich, Royalty, Jews, and foreigners. The subtle difference is the slogans being said while they did it. Socialists would chant equality of the worker as they put the bullet in the head of a Jewish person, while the Fascist would chant death to the Jewish global system.

As I said you need to restudy this point in history, and you need to see how they managed their economies and political systems.

I guess the Best example to use would be Frasco's Spain since he was the only follower leader based on Mussolini to survive the second world war. He installed 100% socialism for all Spaniards. This included Education, Health, welfare, and public transportation, he nationalized all businesses with profit margins over 1 million Dollars, which would then be sold off to Spaniards in good standing with his party. He protected the Roman Catholic Church, and executed all communists. His saving grace was he protected all Jewish people who came to his nation, since his scape goat was the Prior Royal Family and Communists. Technically one could argue that the Basque were also outside the system, but this is because the majority of the Basque were pro Communist during the Civil war, and the Basque never claim to be Spanish and insist on a unique basque nation between France and Spain.

[matters]

I would imagine that the majority are liberal because these are forums for video games whose players are mostly <35 years of age. If i need to explain why 'young people' are generally tagged as liberal then you might need to inform yourself a little better.

[GreatOak]

There's a lot of comments to the effect of "you can't call yourself liberal or conservative." On a personal level those distinctions matter, but not on a political level. When you vote in a 2-party system, you're picking a liberal or a conservative. A Republican in Massachussetts is to the left of a Democrat in Oklahoma. However, voting for a left-wing Republican is still a vote for conservatism because voting-bloc majorities, committee majorities, and speakership matter SO MUCH in the US Congress.

At least in the U.S., it's almost always political ignorance that says you can vote across party lines or vote for a specific candidate despite their party affiliation. If you're pro-choice, you're better off voting for the anti-abortion Democrat than you are voting for the pro-choice Republican.

My core issues are minority rights, gun control, anti-war foreign policy, access to healthcare, lower college tuition, and lower taxes on the middle class. So I vote blue no matter what. The candidate could be a Baptist preacher who wants to decapitate gays, and I'd still vote for him because senate majority and house speakership matter more than one bad apple's vote. Plus, the parties have ways of leveraging lockstep voting.

If this doesn't apply to you then ignore the question, but why is gun control a left/right issue here? You would think that people who support personal freedoms would support liberal gun ownership, at least in this country where we have a unique culture and second amendment. I find it strange how conservatives support freedom in ths instance and most (I know of many progressives and leftists who are consistent on social freedoms and support gun ownership) progressives don't. I'm more interested in the first principles behind these thought processes.

[Bridgetjones]

I would imagine that the majority are liberal because these are forums for video games whose players are mostly <35 years of age. If i need to explain why 'young people' are generally tagged as liberal then you might need to inform yourself a little better.

Actually, it seems most young people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It's not hard to know why that is: Our parents and grandparents were more racist and bigoted, and we found it disgusting. Many young people are fiscally conservative because they think it means lower taxes and more money in their pocket, which it usually doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

If this doesn't apply to you then ignore the question, but why is gun control a left/right issue here? You would think that people who support personal freedoms would support liberal gun ownership, at least in this country where we have a unique culture and second amendment. I find it strange how conservatives support freedom in ths instance and most (I know of many progressives and leftists who are consistent on social freedoms and support gun ownership) progressives don't. I'm more interested in the first principles behind these thought processes.

American Democrats don't support meaningful gun control, they support common-sense regulation of sales, transfers, and ownership. That's not gun control in any sort of global sense. Other than that point of fact, I'm not going to debate gun control here because there are other threads for that and too many good topics get derailed in that crap.

[Gothicshark]

How do you define major sweeping welfare. Because many European countries went through that in the early 1900s.

Many European Nations were Either Becoming Communist or Fascist in the Early 1900's, none of the Capitalistic Republics had Social Services until after the Second World War. All of the Royal nations prior to the 1st world war had no social systems, and where still class based. The sweeping surge of Communism and Fascism through out Europe was the Reason Why FDR did what he did, it stopped the desire to try the new Socialist type systems that were popular in Europe and helped keep Secular Capitalism free in America. The UK under Churchill started to create similar Social services but this happened after FDR's New Deal had taken effect. Now of course the US stopped adding social services, because we had the VA system for medical, and most American Males qualified for this system, and Public Education was always apart of the US system.

- - - Updated - - -

A little hyperbole in all of those, but I essentially agree. The only thing the conservatives want to shrink is social benefit spending.

Sorry southern blood, Hyperbole is a normal part of speech, it's not Ice Tea, it's the Southern Style Ice Tea. (ie has a spoon of white sugar in it.)

[Stir]

I see the problem here, you think that Fascism didn't do what Socialism did. I like to use the Term Military Socialism, the USA has had this Since the Veterans Administration was created. It grants 100% equality of social services to all Veterans with hierarchy system of line placement based on service merit. ie a Service connected Veteran gets to go before a Non-Service connected veteran. in your definition this would not count as a social service. But under the strict definition of social service it is, and it is designed to be a merit based social system. In every Fascist nation they used a Merit based Social system, it granted 100% benefits and equality to all citizens based on Merit. This is well documented and provable. The problem is that the rise to power of a Fascist nation requires the removal of everyone who is deemed not worthy of being a citizen. These people are killed, deported, or used as slave labor. This is actually no different from what happens in a communist nation, during the rise to power the Soviets murdered everyone who they felt was responsible for the previous system of government, this included Clergy, Rich, Royalty, Jews, and foreigners. The subtle difference is the slogans being said while they did it. Socialists would chant equality of the worker as they put the bullet in the head of a Jewish person, while the Fascist would chant death to the Jewish global system.

Okay; I'll accept this, but it wouldn't fall under the banner of 'socialism' by the definitions I grew up with... 'Merit' simply becomes one more form of hierarchy; rather than leveling the playing field, it creates an additional (and artificial) socio-economical divide (thus adding to the class and caste systems). It's exactly what North Korea does as well, by the way.
But mostly, I accuse Fascism of doing (actively) what socialism promotes against. And that is creating inequality.

[Gurluas]

I am neither, I am a Socialist. This poll is biased as it only contains Right wing options.

[GreatOak]

Actually, it seems most young people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It's not hard to know why that is: Our parents and grandparents were more racist and bigoted, and we found it disgusting. Many young people are fiscally conservative because they think it means lower taxes and more money in their pocket, which it usually doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -



American Democrats don't support meaningful gun control, they support common-sense regulation of sales, transfers, and ownership. That's not gun control in any sort of global sense. Other than that point of fact, I'm not going to debate gun control here because there are other threads for that and too many good topics get derailed in that crap.

I know they don't, generally speaking. I consider gun control to be bans or exorbitant costs put in the way of gun ownership. Background checks and safe storage laws aren't really "control" in my mind. I wasn't really talking about the benefits or negatives or various political ends. I was more referring to the mindset behind social freedoms an why liberals and progressives (who often arrogantly act as if they're the only paragons of social freedoms) tend to have an aversion to firearm ownership while conservatives (who also claim to love freedom while usually doing everything they can to prevent it except in cases of firearm ownership) love it.

[Pitkanen]

Some liberals want far reaching gun control, those are the ones who get quoted by the NRA. The majority just want a system where if someone buys a gun, a background check happened regardless of where the purchase occurred. In addition to that, if someone is buying up dozens/hundreds of guns and they start finding those guns in drug cartel violence, then they can actually trace the guns back to the original purchaser.

Also, the tea party is an integral part of republican party now. If you can't get out of the primaries you can't get elected in the general election, and in the majority of primary elections the tea party is the group that has the best turn out. Net result, even the moderate Republicans (Traditional Republicans, aka Republicans that have the mindset of 15 years ago) have to fall in line and drink the tea. You can separate out Republican circa2002 from Republican circa2013, but you can't separate Republican circa2013 from tea party.

[Gothicshark]

If this doesn't apply to you then ignore the question, but why is gun control a left/right issue here? You would think that people who support personal freedoms would support liberal gun ownership, at least in this country where we have a unique culture and second amendment. I find it strange how conservatives support freedom in ths instance and most (I know of many progressives and leftists who are consistent on social freedoms and support gun ownership) progressives don't. I'm more interested in the first principles behind these thought processes.

Sadly there is only one reason why it is a left right issue, it has to do with lobbyists. Since the Republicans (not libertarians but true Reagan Republicans) support the idea of a Military Merit based Social System, this means that the Arms and Military industries pay campaign contributions to Actual Republicans. So any chance to deregulate the Arms Industry they will take. It also means groups like the NRA will always fund a Republican Candidate.

So when looking at legislation that places regulations on the Arms industry and distribution networks, Democrats have no financial reason to favor the Arms industry.

People think it is a second Amendment issue in reality it is a Business issue in which the business 100% supports one party and not the other.

[Catta]

Many European Nations were Either Becoming Communist or Fascist in the Early 1900's, none of the Capitalistic Republics had Social Services until after the Second World War. All of the Royal nations prior to the 1st world war had no social systems, and where still class based. The sweeping surge of Communism and Fascism through out Europe was the Reason Why FDR did what he did, it stopped the desire to try the new Socialist type systems that were popular in Europe and helped keep Secular Capitalism free in America. The UK under Churchill started to create similar Social services but this happened after FDR's New Deal had taken effect. Now of course the US stopped adding social services, because we had the VA system for medical, and most American Males qualified for this system, and Public Education was always apart of the US system.

You will find that many monarchies of Europe were instituting sweeping social welfare reforms precisely because of what happened in Russia. This was far earlier than FDR. And also before Churchill.

[Gothicshark]

Okay; I'll accept this, but it wouldn't fall under the banner of 'socialism' by the definitions I grew up with... 'Merit' simply becomes one more form of hierarchy; rather than leveling the playing field, it creates an additional (and artificial) socio-economical divide (thus adding to the class and caste systems). It's exactly what North Korea does as well, by the way.
But mostly, I accuse Fascism of doing (actively) what socialism promotes against. And that is creating inequality.

It is a difference that only a Marxist would consider. However Communism has been redefined many times by each leader who claims to be Communist. The Reality is most of them end up with systems closer to what Mussolini described than Marx. So even though I hate Fascism I can at least realize they where honest about what they were while Communist leaders were either deluded or out right liars.

Only Social Democracy comes close to Marx Vision, and strangely it works because it keeps Capitalism and Real Democracy.

[Deleted]

Many European Nations were Either Becoming Communist or Fascist in the Early 1900's, none of the Capitalistic Republics had Social Services until after the Second World War. All of the Royal nations prior to the 1st world war had no social systems, and where still class based. The sweeping surge of Communism and Fascism through out Europe was the Reason Why FDR did what he did, it stopped the desire to try the new Socialist type systems that were popular in Europe and helped keep Secular Capitalism free in America. The UK under Churchill started to create similar Social services but this happened after FDR's New Deal had taken effect. Now of course the US stopped adding social services, because we had the VA system for medical, and most American Males qualified for this system, and Public Education was always apart of the US system.

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry southern blood, Hyperbole is a normal part of speech, it's not Ice Tea, it's the Southern Style Ice Tea. (ie has a spoon of white sugar in it.)

The UK had pensions and national insurance (sick pay, unemployment pay) before the First World War. We just didn't have nationalised healthcare until after the second.

[Stir]

It is a difference that only a Marxist would consider. However Communism has been redefined many times by each leader who claims to be Communist. The Reality is most of them end up with systems closer to what Mussolini described than Marx. So even though I hate Fascism I can at least realize they where honest about what they were while Communist leaders were either deluded or out right liars.

Only Social Democracy comes close to Marx Vision, and strangely it works because it keeps Capitalism and Real Democracy.

I understand and agree with those points, actually.
But Marx himself has stated that he would never wish to live in a fully 'marxist' society. In our global economy, in order to survive and stay true, a socialist system must adopt at least some (relatively free) capitalism. Likewise, for a capitalist society to survive and escape becoming a corporate dictatorship, it needs to adopt at least some socialist ideals.