Whats your beliefs, really...

celticlord said:

I am a reactionary in application, a radical in desire, and an anarchist whenever I can get away with it.

Click to expand...

the makeout hobo said:

By those four definitions, how do you characterise your beliefs in relationship to the power structure in your country?

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

I am a reactionary in application, a radical in desire, and an anarchist whenever I can get away with it.

Click to expand...

the makeout hobo said:

........huh?

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

Simple enough:

Reactionary in application: I want to roll back the overgrown government we have in Washington and return it to the proper federalism outlined in the Constitution. Basically, I want to undue Lincoln's mess.

Radical in desire: The society I would wish is something of a cross between a Louis L'Amour Western and Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. While such a society is not wholly achievable, maximizing individual liberty lets me get closest to it.

Anarchist when I can get away with it: I have a problem with authority figures. For some strange reason they don't like me very much.

Click to expand...

the makeout hobo said:

I would call you a radical then, because you want to shape a society like nothing that's ever existed.

Click to expand...

Joe1991 said:

Liberal.
I believe ours is the best government system ever devised, but it requires constant tinkering.


"The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance."

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

I am a reactionary in application, a radical in desire, and an anarchist whenever I can get away with it.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

I am a reactionary in application, a radical in desire, and an anarchist whenever I can get away with it.

Click to expand...

the makeout hobo said:

Here in America, "liberal" and "conservative" have so much excess baggage on them, so many extra connotations. But when you break them down to their roots, their true meaning, the words apply to someone's relationship to the status quo.

Click to expand...

Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, conservâre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.
Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”

Click to expand...

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

Click to expand...

In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the right are terms used in the spectrum of Left-Right Politics, and much like the opposite appellation of Left-wing, it has a broad variety of definitions: the same name can, in politics, sometimes mean different things. However, it is generally used to refer to the segments of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, monarchism, fascism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, reactionism, some forms of populism, the religious right, nationalism, militarism, realism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics.

Click to expand...

In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes.
<snip>
An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then define as 'centrist' any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers too far Left, and define as a 'Centrist' any person who self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

Click to expand...

In politics, a moderate is an individual who holds the middle position between those generally classified as being left-wing, liberal, or socialist and those seen as right-wing, conservative, or capitalist. An alternate definition, and one widely held among swing voters, is that a moderate is one who has firm convictions on all issues, yet some convictions fall just to the left of the spectrum and some fall just to the right.
Political moderates usually seek conciliation between the views of various political parties, and often take positions partially derived from opposite views. For example, political moderates might not support the end of private property in the way advocated by Marxists, but they also might not support laissez-faire capitalism.
Some political moderates are "bi-polar" in the sense that they side with right-wingers on certain classes of issues, but with left-wingers on others, rather than consistently staking out intermediate positions across the board. In the United States, however, the term "libertarian" is often used to denote those who hold fiscal-conservative views on economic issues such as taxes and welfare, but are liberal on social and moral issues like abortion and gay rights. A person holding views opposite to this on both counts—taking a liberal interventionist stand on economic issues while lining up with the conservatives socially and morally—is sometimes characterized as a "communitarian."
"Moderate" is by definition a relative term, since the position considered moderate depends on the nature of the two (or more) competing ideologies that the moderates are trying to conciliate. As such, the moderates in one country often do not share the views of moderates in other countries. Even within the same country or community, the position considered "moderate" changes over time. For example, in the Southern United States during the first half of the 19th century, supporting slavery was considered a sensible and moderate view to hold. Today, in the same geographical area, supporting slavery is considered dangerous and unacceptable extremism.

Click to expand...

In politics, the left-wing, the political left, and the left are terms used in the spectrum of Left-Right politics, defined as against the political right and associated, to varying degrees, with social (as opposed to classical) liberalism, progressivism, American liberalism, some forms of populism, social democracy, socialism, communism, syndicalism, some forms of anarchism, communalism, communitarianism, and green politics.
The left is generally secular. However, in some Roman Catholic countries there is a tradition of Liberation theology which focuses upon "social justice", and in most Protestant countries there is a tradition of Christian Socialism. Religion and left-wing politics have sometimes been allies, for example in the U.S. civil rights movement, and sometimes opponents, for example regarding legalized abortion.
Those on the left view themselves as "progressive", on the side of social progress and openness to change.

Click to expand...

In politics, an independent is a politician who is not affiliated with any political party. In countries with a two-party system, independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between the two parties, or may feel that neither of the two parties adequately represents their viewpoint.
Other independent candidates are associated with a political party and may be former members of it, but are not able to stand under its label. For instance, after being expelled from the Labour Party but before joining the Respect Coalition, British Member of Parliament (MP) George Galloway described himself as "Independent Labour".
A third category of independents are those who may belong to or support a political party but believe they should not formally represent it and thus be subject to its policies. This was common among members of most political parties for the purpose of British local government elections until the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Click to expand...

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty. Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists. Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. This form of libertarianism is associated with Objectivists, as well as with individualist anarchists who believe opposition to the state is consistent with this principle.
Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. However, such governmental actions are limited in the free society consequentialists envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.
Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose conscription and the welfare state, because they believe coercing someone to provide charity and military service is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.

Click to expand...

celticlord said:

Simple enough:

Reactionary in application: I want to roll back the overgrown government we have in Washington and return it to the proper federalism outlined in the Constitution. Basically, I want to undue Lincoln's mess.

Radical in desire: The society I would wish is something of a cross between a Louis L'Amour Western and Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. While such a society is not wholly achievable, maximizing individual liberty lets me get closest to it.

Anarchist when I can get away with it: I have a problem with authority figures. For some strange reason they don't like me very much.

Click to expand...