Are you Conservative or a Liberal?

[Deleted]

I lean fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

Either way, I'm close to the middle.

Sounds reasonable. How about Libertarian wit a social streak :P

[Krez]

I lean fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

Either way, I'm close to the middle.

This. Most people fit this category even if they don't realize it. Libertarians.

[Pitkanen]

Well, you need to be careful with the terms "fiscal conservative" and "fiscally conservative".
Really you have 3 main categories of thinking:
-Government Need to Shrink beginning by reducing taxes now regardless of debt, even if spending cuts later (Libertarianism) - Republicans and Libertarian Parties
-Government Should expand it's role in social welfare regardless of debt, even revenue/taxes later - Democratic Party

None of the major parties are "Fiscally Conservative". To be Fiscally Conservative you basically need to put the budget (balancing it) ahead of your other goals. Libertarians voted yes to bush tax cut renewal even with the deficit. Dems did too. Republicans did too. If your senator/house member didn't vote no citing: "but the debt"... he's not a fiscal conservative.

[Deleted]

I have both left & right-wing opinions on stuff. I'm probably more center than anything else nowadays.

[Felya]

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

[ADman319]

The problem with this question is we live in the real world and you cant stereotype people to ether side because were all a little bit of everything

[Felya]

Sounds reasonable. How about Libertarian wit a social streak :P

That requires quite a social streak.

[Hondoshaver]

Libertarian! Fiscally responsible, socially accepting is the way to go!

[Gothicshark]

How thoughtful of you to include ad hominem to instill the notion that I have had no actual education. Despite my university degree.

I have argued that Fascism isn't socialism because of the inherent lack of equality based on population group, something that is decidely anti-socialist. I have made this argument, but you disagree with it based on the name of the person who invented it. I can call a pile of shit 'rock,' but the pile of shit is still a pile of shit. This is the argument you're not getting.

I have not argued that communism is not related to socialism. Merely that the fact of communism's existence has no bearing on socialism itself. Communism is an extreme form of socialism, but socialism is not a form of communism.

So I invite you to follow up your own advice, and stop patronizing others.

Edit for clarity/brevity:
A system that promotes inequality cannot be socialist. It is directly contradictory to socialism. And it doesn't matter what someone calls that system; a name does not make it socialist.

Socialism does not require 100% of the population to be considered Equal, a Fascist government has the Majority population group as 100% equal, while everyone outside this group is either indentured or removed. In the cases of Islamic Fascism which was found in places like Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Qaddafi, the society was 90% equal, with a minority group treated in-equally, this does not invalidate that these governments had 100% socialism for it's people. It only means Socialism wasn't equally applied to all groups. Even in Communist nations like the Soviet Union there where pocket groups which received no Social Benefits and where out side the social system, you claim to have a degree but it is clear it is not in social sciences.

You ought to be joking...

Social Democracy = a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

FDR was the first leader in a non-communist nation to institute major sweeping Social Welfare.

[Deathhoof]

None of the above. I'm a self described Republican, but ideologically, I'm more of a libertarian. I'm very fiscally conservative, and socially liberal (In all cases except abortion. But even there, I'm not on par with a lot of Republicans nowadays.)

[Masark]

Well, you need to be careful with the terms "fiscal conservative" and "fiscally conservative".

If your senator/house member didn't vote no citing: "but the debt"... he's not a fiscal conservative.

No, American fiscal conservatives read the term differently.

Fiscal = Related to the treasury of a country, company, region or city, particularly to government spending and revenue.
Conservative = A person who favours maintenance of the status quo.
Fiscal status quo in the USA = Non-stop deficits for the last 50 years

Therefore, an American fiscal conservative stands for continued deficit spending.

[Felya]

Well, you need to be careful with the terms "fiscal conservative" and "fiscally conservative".
Really you have 3 main categories of thinking:
-Government Need to Shrink beginning by reducing taxes now regardless of debt, even if spending cuts later (Libertarianism) - Republicans and Libertarian Parties
-Government Should expand it's role in social welfare regardless of debt, even revenue/taxes later - Democratic Party

Cut foreign military spending (fiscally conservative) and spend it on education (socially liberal).

Size of government is a faux debate. The issue is efficiency, not size. The issue is intrusion on civil liberties, not size. Arguing about size of government, lets people sign off on the patriot act while demanding the size of government decreases.

[Gothicshark]

Financial Policies:
Socialism - Everyone is provided for, fairly equal pay, workers control means of production
Communism - Everyone is provided for, a few government officials control means of production
Capitalism - Dog eat dog, a few elite control means of production

Political Policies:
Democracy - Fair Voting - All people have a say in government
Majoritocracy - Fair Voting - The majority party controls the whole government, minority parties have little say
Dictatorship - Leadership is in place by military force, voting may occur but it is not fair or open. (Facism falls here)
Monarchy - May be either a Dictatorship or it may be a genuinely willing society.

'm going to quote this because this is close to the core of why Communism and Fascism are Socialist states.

Yes Fascism removes specific populations from the collective whole, but for the Majority of the population they become equal under fascism, the outsiders are removed from the nation once that is done their is no difference between the two systems out side of the treatment of the Church. Both systems have elite classes that manage the majority, and both systems use a Dictator. However in a communist society the idea is the dictator is a transitory position on the way to true classless. equality. Fascism states that the Dictator is the final stage. Which is the core difference between the two systems. Both Communism and Fascism blame people for the in equal status of the workers. Communist say it is the Rich ruling class, Churches, and Jews, fascism says it is just the Jews. As I said you need to study this because you do not understand these systems or their histories.

In Germany they had a breading program to create a new generation of perfect children, who where raised as equals and were meant to user in the 1000 years of German equality. Read up on Hitler youth, read the history of the Volkswagen, read the history and political structure of every known fascist nation and Communist nation. there are very few differences.

As I said Islamic Fascism lasts even to this day. It is based on Mussolini's vision only with the Catholic Church replaced by Islam. Modern day is a system based on this although they removed the Dictator and placed the Church in that position.

[Stir]

Socialism does not require 100% of the population to be considered Equal, a Fascist government has the Majority population group as 100% equal, while everyone outside this group is either indentured or removed. In the cases of Islamic Fascism which was found in places like Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Qaddafi, the society was 90% equal, with a minority group treated in-equally, this does not invalidate that these governments had 100% socialism for it's people. It only means Socialism wasn't equally applied to all groups. Even in Communist nations like the Soviet Union there where pocket groups which received no Social Benefits and where out side the social system, you claim to have a degree but it is clear it is not in social sciences.

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.

Edit:

Yes Fascism removes specific populations from the collective whole, but for the Majority of the population they become equal under fascism, the outsiders are removed from the nation once that is done their is no difference between the two systems out side of the treatment of the Church. Both systems have elite classes that manage the majority, and both systems use a Dictator. However in a communist society the idea is the dictator is a transitory position on the way to true classless. equality. Fascism states that the Dictator is the final stage. Which is the core difference between the two systems. Both Communism and Fascism blame people for the in equal status of the workers. Communist say it is the Rich ruling class, Churches, and Jews, fascism says it is just the Jews. As I said you need to study this because you do not understand these systems or their histories.

I then still disagree.
Oh, I'll agree that fascism attempts to get equality by removing 'unwanted groups' from its population, but once you start doing that, why not just kill everyone? (okay; granted, they tried that). The reason I oppose it is because it is not current or actual socialism; it is fascism with the goal of becoming a totalitarian socialist state once the fascism broke the eggs for them.
Communism, by the way, does not blame the church or Jews. Actually, no system inherently blames the Jews for anything. Certain (misguided) ideologies do, but that's not inherently systematic. Fascism (itself) does not blame the Jews (it just blames someone; Jews were historically unlucky). Nazi Germany was fascist, and they blamed (mostly) Jews and Gypsies.
Communism also does not necessarily blame the Church. Marx referred to religion as 'The opium of the people' because religion kept people content. So while 'communism' is typically anti-religion, it's mostly so because of a sense of competition. A religious country can be communist and religious; the ideology of communism simply needs to be made part of that religion (and other religions consequently need to be purged).

[Bridgetjones]

I got this:



Can't say that I ever considered myself a libertarian. I must have gotten that score based on answers to social questions; the government needs to GTFO of bedrooms and start paying attention to boardrooms.

[Gothicshark]

Well, you need to be careful with the terms "fiscal conservative" and "fiscally conservative".
Really you have 3 main categories of thinking:
-Government Need to Shrink beginning by reducing taxes now regardless of debt, even if spending cuts later (Libertarianism) - Republicans and Libertarian Parties
-Government Should expand it's role in social welfare regardless of debt, even revenue/taxes later - Democratic Party

None of the major parties are "Fiscally Conservative". To be Fiscally Conservative you basically need to put the budget (balancing it) ahead of your other goals. Libertarians voted yes to bush tax cut renewal even with the deficit. Dems did too. Republicans did too. If your senator/house member didn't vote no citing: "but the debt"... he's not a fiscal conservative.

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.

[Deleted]

Political Compass is a fun resource for determining where a person/group of people are on the wider political spectrum. However, the lack of neutral responses skewer the results as it forces the respondent to instead input an answer that isn't necessarily what they think, but it also has the effect of changing their result. Furthermore, the discourse of the questions provoke left-leaning responses, so you will almost always end up several spaces left than where you actually are. How many spaces that is I can't really say; but in my experience you'll find that you have a lot more people in the green quadrant than in any other quadrant.

[Kujako]

I got this:



Can't say that I ever considered myself a libertarian. I must have gotten that score based on answers to social questions; the government needs to GTFO of bedrooms and start paying attention to boardrooms.

I really dislike those charts. People do not fit into categories as neatly as they would like. It is possible to be far left on one issue and far right on another, being so does not make you a centrist.

[Deleted]

point to the horizon to your right & you'll see me. i'm that dot way out in the distance.

[Catta]

Social Democracy = a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

FDR was the first leader in a non-communist nation to institute major sweeping Social Welfare.

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