What is your political association?

[Anonymous]

Want to take a poll of GAG users

Moderate Democrat

Moderate Republican

Progressive

MAGA

Socialist/Communist

Libertarian

White Nationalist

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I'm from Japan and don't participate in American politics. Yet I test like this:

I err on freedom for the most part. Free markets, free trade, free speech. I suspect I would be considered libertarian in the US.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I voted for "libertarian". I'm a consequentialist though so I only align with libertarian philosophy until it starts producing negative outcomes.

[lightbulb27]

We'll that was fun... I came out flipped of you to the left. I'm more liberal. I've been telling people I'm a bleeding heart liberal but libertarian disguised as a MAGA republican... but they don't undersatnd. hahha!! yes, you'd fit right into New Hampshire and other areas!
I voted moderate republican

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@lightbulb27 Cheers! I figure we're both anti-authoritarian which is nice! I'm also a bleeding heart liberal type in disguise. The reason I lean right on the economic side is that I'm of the opinion so far (and it could be wrong) that less government intervention over the economy might actually be the best way to help those in need.

If I use minimum wage as an example, I am not at all against seeing people who are just scraping together a living receive higher wages. I'm entirely in favor of it. I'm just worried that's not what's actually going to happen with minimum wage hikes as there's nothing to force an employer to keep their workers. If I put myself in the shoes of an employer just trying to optimize their revenue, there's nothing to stop me from reducing workers from FTEs to part-time to slash their benefits and reduce labor costs, automate their jobs now that the machines are starting to become cheaper than the mandated minimum wage, etc. I also worry that it will tend to price minorities out of the market with the price floor, like immigrants who can't speak English so fluently might be priced out of even custodian jobs if there are applicants who can freak fluent English. They have no bargaining power if they can't negotiate for lower than the price floor.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@lightbulb27 So I'm more in favor of practical welfare systems than minimum wage mandates, e. g., because that's guaranteed for the needy to receive while the true minimum wage for the unemployed is $0/hour. I actually like UBI because that's something given universally to everyone without having to apply for it.

[lightbulb27]

All worthy topics I'd have to mentally chew on like a piece of dried jerky. With AI coming fast, we are facing a massive dislocation... not necessarily "firing", but reallocation of people... at minimum. It's gonna be a challenge and our true goal is to be better huamn beings than when this all happened before. It can go bad directions (destruction of life and property) rather than towards greater human connection and freedom. It's just choices. Not easy ones at times.
"May we live in interesting times..."!:)

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@lightbulb27 For sure!

Another reason I lean on the bottom-right quadrant is that, while I could at least hypothetically see a case where more government intervention over the economy could actually do the best job of helping those most in need, it's not guaranteed that expanding government meddling over the economy will produce it.

I'm sure even those in favor of more government intervention over the economy can agree that if the wrong political leaders are elected, like those who are corrupt, or just those who favor really counter-productive regulations and mandates and so forth, government control over the private sector could work towards an extremely counter-productive and even downright disastrous direction.

So I'm willing to concede very freely that my idea of minimizing government control over the economy could very well be sub-optimal, but at least it doesn't depend on continually electing the correct politicians repeatedly to see and maintain an optimal solution. So I'm also inclined in this very possibly sub-optimal solution since it might be, on average, superior to the myriad of possible solutions we might get when we allow politicians of all sorts, on both sides of the political spectrum, to continue to expand their ability to intervene with it.

An economy left alone at least can't suffer the fate of the likes of Venezuela or Zimbabwe. The most economically free nations like Singapore and Switzerland might not be ideal but they aren't bad at all from the perspective of their economies. They're pretty good.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@lightbulb27 Like to me, a Democrat who distrusts Republican policies that expand control over the economy, or a Republican who trusts Democratic policies that expand control over the economy, should both use that distrust of each other to just generally distrust expansion of the public sector over the private sector, since we practically have to trust *both* Democrat and Republican officials (given their tendency to both be elected in a ping-pong fashion) with their expansive measures if we favor politicians on either aisle to reduce economic freedom in a way that isn't counter-productive.

With the way I favor which is the way of the Singaporeans and the Swiss and so forth who maximize economic freedom and continually elect officials who do, it's non-partisan. We just elect officials regardless of what party they represent who just favor minimal intervention over the private sector. We can even measure their success with economic freedom indices; if they're doing a good job, economic freedom improves or remains high. If they're doing a bad job, it starts to plummet.

It's very likely not an optimal solution but it's an extremely simple, good and proven solution around the world for countries that embrace it, and comes with the benefit that it isn't divisive. It converges towards a single point (minimal intervention) rather than potentially expanding in all sorts of possible directions, some possibly good, some almost certainly disastrous, in terms of how we reduce economic freedom in favor of more government intervention.

So it's a very safe solution even if it's not the ideal one. It comes with the benefit that it doesn't require anything remotely close to ideal conditions or representatives, and it has minimal risk of corruption given the minimal involvement of government over both private and economic freedom.

[Danny_dan92]

I was a democrat from the age of 18 till 25




Then was independent for 4 years.




I have been a Republican voter for 2 years now.








However, like many Republican women, I agree with pretty much every republican policy except pro life. Why? Because the second you allow the government to strip away individual rights from people… they’ll keep pushing. I’m very consistent with my political views. I’m truly “small government” not just for certain topics.

[msmissydc]

Apperently non American. Progressive is probably the closesest. That being said knowing how easy SOME americans missuse socialism and commumism maybe even that. No I am not a socialist or commumist!! But if it includes any left leaning you dont have in the U. S. Than yeah.

[lightbulb27]

We'll that was fun... I came out flipped of you to the left. I'm more liberal. I've been telling people I'm a bleeding heart liberal but libertarian disguised as a MAGA republican... but they don't undersatnd. hahha!! yes, you'd fit right into New Hampshire and other areas!
I voted moderate republican

[tremendousfern]

I consider myself a nationalist. I think that ethnicities/races have the right to self-determination and exclusivity. I think multi-culturalism has been a complete failure, resulting in a bunch of different cultures coming into conflict with each other over differing values and customs all because it makes wealthy people even richer to import as many people as possible to serve as cogs in their economic machine.

[OtterMan68]

Classical liberal:

Bill of rights absolutist, free market capitalism (NO tariffs, subsidies for corporations or farmers. Gov should not pick winners and losers in the economy), less gov involvement in education, local control > state control. state control > federal control, bring our troops home!

[andreasderjuengere]

A U. S. guy who knows me a little recently "rated" me being kind of Libertarian.
Personally, I am not a fan of any political party or 'orientation'.
"Politicians" -to me- are self serving liars.

[ChicoFromThe305]

Which one is the one where it means I don't give a shit about all the politics crap and I wouldn't care even if the world was falling apart?

[andreasderjuengere]

That will be "Anomie" :)

[JacobJordan]

None of the above. I don't do politics at all.

[Anonymous]

I'm a constitutionalist, but that wasn't on your list. I chose moderate Republican since I tend to vote that way as it is the lesser of two evils.

[Anonymous]

No idea what any of that stuff means. Have no interest in politics. Your governments are all equally useless and always have been, so anyone who votes for them is a retard.

[BCRanger10]

I'm a political conservative.

[laly520]

none of the above

[exitseven]

MAGA Republican.