My Opinions On Political Views

[Nice_Guy_Last]

These are my political views, and they are open to interpretation. I will accept open discourse on these topics, but I will not tolerate personal attacks on my, or anyone else's, character here. If you insult me, I will ignore you; if your opinion, or subsequent comments, becomes a bickering war over personal issues with another person, I will put my foot down and stop the conversation. Have out your personal differences on personal messages or don't talk at all. Thank you.

Conservatism and liberalism are terms often bandied about with really no concise definition other than: one side, and it's opinions, are one, and the other side, and it's opinions, are the other. In America, conservatism refers to the American right wing: the Republican Party, and liberalism refers to the left wing, the Democrats.

The problem with this is that the terms have become fluid in their definition, allowing one person from one side to associate a person or idea with the other with no real basis on doing so.

In the spirit of finding a more concise definition of the terms, I have come up with simple, but reliable, definitions for these terms: liberalism involves moving power from the government to all people of the society, while conservatism involves moving power to the government at the expense of the people's choices. These definitions are based on social governance: in a conservative government, people are told how they are allowed to act and how not to act.

With these definitions, we can apply these terms to true political opposites to understand their implications in today's world: the ultimate form of conservatism is Fascism, with Dystopia being the extreme result. In a fascist society, all aspects of life are controlled by the goverment, from how you are supposed to act/be, to how businesses are run and operated. On the opposite end is Libertarianism, with Anarchy being the extreme result. In a libertarian society, the goverment is practically non-existant and has little to no authority on the goings on of the society it belongs to.

Understanding this will allow us to see that political views are a range on a line and not a black and white, or, rather, Red and Blue, topic. In America, Republicanism is both liberal and conservative, and Democratism is as well, simply opposite the other.

The real heart of the matter isn't whether we like one side or the other, but how we view each subject. I know NRA, National Rifle Association, members who are pro-choice in the abortion debate. I know conservationalists (which is in fact a conservative ideal, even though it is portrayed as liberal in modern political views) who are against the legalization of marijuana.

So don't be beholden to a political group when voting. Vote what makes sense to you, not what other people tell you to vote. The two parties are not fully representative of either side of the debates, and we should learn to distance ourselves from following the pack and focus on what is important to us. Otherwise, we will never find the solutions to the problems we seek to solve.

[Anonymous]

Your definitions are way off.

Understanding the real definitions also makes it clear why the terms have become blurred.

Liberalism did, indeed, mean what you said - a lot of freedom from government.

Conservatism, really, means doing things 'the way they have been done' and being skeptical of new changes that will improve the world.

You can likely see where this is headed. Most modern conservatives are classical liberals. Because we've had a classically liberal society for quite some time.

Meanwhile liberalism has had a child: social liberalism, which intends to go much further than classical liberalism did in guaranteeing equality.

You're correct in that various 'right' factions tend to call all democrats 'liberals' and vice versa.

But really for example, neither the more libertarian republicans (who want change - more freedom) nor the Trump faction (economic moderates/nationalists anti-immigrant authoritarians) are conservative.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

So, given the definitions you gave, could there be those who are both liberal and conservative, and what would be an appropriate opposite to liberalism?

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah, based on traditional definitions, classical liberals are now conservatives, yet there's a new batch of authoritarian moderate-right nationalists who claim they're 'not real conservatives'.

I guess definitionally, the opposition to conservatives would be 'progressive' and the opposite of -classical- liberal would actually be authoritarian-leftist. The reality is though that in a first past the post system, you force things into two coalitions. Sometimes the composition of those coalitions changes a lot. It changed in the U. S. with the 'southern strategy'. It may be changing again now. Basically its going to be quite challenging to keep neo-liberal-pro-immigrant-high income-social progressives in the same party as authoritarian-nationalist-social moderate-working class. And i'm not sure which party each of those will end up in. If one party changes, the other will be changed.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

So, another question: would you consider socialism to be a liberal or authoritarian style of governance?

[Opinion Owner]

Socialism as the word is used can be -either-. Much like capitalism can be expressed by both U. s. style social conservatives or libertarians, there is a more libertarian left and a more authoritarian left.

If you haven't looked at say https://www.politicalcompass.org/ you might find it -very- interesting in terms of a way to think about positions. left-right doesn't always work. If you look at some of the countries, for example where i'm stuck, in Canada, there really is a line between more authoritarian right and more libertarian left. But in a lot of countries that axis breaks or shifts. The current French example is one where the so-called 'extreme right' Le pen is actually -well- to the left of the so called centrist Macron (she's also way to the left of any u. s. presidential candidate).

[Nice_Guy_Last]

That is primarily why I dislike the terms "left" and "right". Ultimately, they are contextual terms, lacking definition on their own.

What I was wondering was whether is was liberal or authoritarian outside of context. Is it something that limits or expands the government's authority over people?

[ak666]

I'm something close to what Friedman called a Consequentialist Libertarian.
It's still far from anarchism and is close to the classic liberal. Government is still required to protect people.

That is, every person has the freedom to do whatever they want and rights to their property provided that they do not infringe upon someone else's ability to do the same.

If they infringe upon someone else's liberty or impose costs to them (ex: vandalize their stuff), then government comes in through the force of law to protect these individuals whose liberties are being infringed upon.

That leads to a fairly simple dichotomy with most issues. The simple question is basically: "Is this person infringing upon someone else's freedom?" If yes, then government can intervene. If no, then government cannot.

"Is the government forcing someone to do something against their will even though they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights?" If yes, then it's wrong and government should not have that power.

[ak666]

That does have me favoring some very controversial policies. For example, I'm in favor of ending the war on drugs and legalizing *all* narcotics. People sometimes think I'm bat-shit crazy but it's not with the vision of everyone becoming a cocaine addict. It's just with the vision that government should not be allowed to force people, by law and threat of violence, what they can and can't do with their own body.

Finally I still believe in the power of persuasion and education to steer people away from harmful substances. Law should not be used to infringe on people's freedom as I see it.

[ak666]

I'm also not a hardcore libertarian of the kind that believes taxes should be voluntarily given to government to provide their services of protecting people's freedom. That's a little too extreme for my taste. I just think we should really limit the services government provides, reduce government spending to a minimum, and let people be free to do whatever they want provided they are not forcefully interfering with other people's ability to do whatever they want.

[ak666]

So for example, minimum wage? I'm against it. That requires a government mandate that forces employers and employees to do things against their will. It prevents employees from being able to work for less and employers from being able to pay less. That goes against freedom.

Abortion is a tough one because some people want to recognize the fetus as deserving liberty. However, we can't guarantee the fetus liberty without taking away the pregnant female's liberty. That leads to a stalemate. Nevertheless, I settle it in a simple way. What requires us to use the force and violence of government? That would be criminalizing it. I'm not in favor of criminalizing it. Let us use persuasion or education to steer girls away from abortion if we want. Let's not point guns at her head. That makes me pro-choice.

[pinkesweet]

I like the freedom provided by the second amendment, I'm building a missile silo in my back yard.

[pinkesweet]

Just curious,,,,,,, how much does an ICBM cost?

[ak666]

@pinkesweet There are practical limits of course. For a start an ICBM isn't a very practical form of defense on domestic soil. Even the military would find it difficult to launch such attacks on home soil without contributing further to an uprising and potentially dividing the loyalty of their own forces.

An adequate measure of defense as I think the founders intended was, say, the types of arms any oppressed people might have been able to have to avoid being sheep to the slaughter in the face of a tyrannical government.

That actually isn't necessarily that much. There's a reason it can sometimes require a SWAT team to take down a small group of armed criminals. A single armed man can potentially subdue a couple dozen unarmed citizens.

[WalterRadio]

"liberalism involves moving power from the government to all people of the society, while conservatism involves moving power to the government at the expense of the people's choices."
You are wrong. There are three main orthogonal axes of politics: Economics, Social, and National Defense (there are more, but smaller). Liberals despise economic freedom; they desire to impose their views of how money should be used and on what people should be allowed to spend their money on upon others.

The extreme view of liberalism is Communism. Many American liberals are not far from it. They ignore private property rights; they believe everything belongs to the government, therefore the government can take your earnings and redistribute to those who are more likely to vote for them. They do not believe people should be allowed to enter into voluntary agreements without the government's consent. They despise the right to protect one's property and self.

Things become blurred on the social axis. Christian conservatives wish to ban abortion, but if one believes a human begins at conception, then it is their moral duty to protect the rights of unborn humans, so they are defending freedom, not limiting it in their view. Liberals wish to force LGBT views onto others.

[Anonymous]

all of it is a bunch of crap. I laugh at people who go and vote as it doesn't make any sense. Both parties are literally the same entities except a difference face. Let me know when you can think of more than one president who hasn't started a war or a president besides kennedy who tried to stop banks from trying privatize themselves. let me know when you can name some presidents who ACTUALLY had the peoples interests at heart. what are some of the best presidents in peoples eyes? abraham lincon? he claimed that freeing the slaves wasn't even his first priority, he mostly cared about the union becoming its own nation but he still wanted control over them. FDR? he froze all resources going into japan, making japan retaliate and causing pearl harbor, and then the atomic bomb dropping which killed 70,000 people. he locked jappenese people into camps, and people want to talk about trump as if its something new? one of the most modern day mentions is of course, obama. he pardoned fbi, cia crimes against civilians, is responsible for the fall of liyba and has dropped thousands of drones in 6 different countries mostly, syria. he has also pardoned all war crimes and is a great friend to isreal and turkey, which are big aggressors and also have blood on their hands. obama has also done NOTHING when north korea has threatened and developed technology capable of sending missiles to our country. Obama has made relations worse with many other countries and neglected any possible relations they could have made and when trump starts another war and goes out of office, another will take his place to do the same thing

[SovereignessofVamps]

I actually don't vote either. It's a waste of time. People hate it if you say that but I feel like you do, kind of.

[Opinion Owner]

@SovereignessofVamps who cares what people say these days. They are intolerant and so phobic of other peoples opinions. So much for ''free speech''

[Izumiblu]

Your definitions are way off base for conservatism and liberalism. And then you conflate political party with ideology.

I agree with your picture though.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

How so?

[Ardent-Lol]

It's so toxic now in this country. Half of the adults act like children, ready to fight over the littlest thing, a lot of the civility is gone. It's sad, have we always been so fragile about our precious party lines? It says something about the person, too weak and immature to have an opinion without turning into an animal.

[hmmmmidk]

ok you can stop now

[TheNinthCircle]

Yes, Republican and Democrat are 2 wings on the same bird of prey. The 2-party system is a joke, great take.

[Lumberman53]

I know I'm late but I agree with this and I have problems with both parties for many reasons including the ones you are mentioning

[abc3643]

Political views are like assholes. Everybody has one.

[Anonymous]

American aren't bright enough to be embarrassed by American politics. It's great if you're a comedian though

[Anonymous]

https://i.imgflip.com/1oh897.jpg

[TiffyPuff]

So like, the picture is totally my view

[Anonymous]

Both parties are heavily corrupted by big money.

[SovereignessofVamps]

Exactly!!

[SuccessfulHornDog]

That's why I am a libertarian

[pinkesweet]

that's why I do my best to pretend I'm from another planet. That way American politics will actually make sense to me

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

this dude gets it