Which of the following terms would you use to describe your ideology? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 02, 2024, 06:27:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Which of the following terms would you use to describe your ideology? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Choose as many as apply
#1
Anarchist
 
#2
Communist
 
#3
Socialist
 
#4
Social Democratic
 
#5
Social Liberal
 
#6
Green
 
#7
Feminist
 
#8
Liberal
 
#9
Libertarian
 
#10
Christian Democratic
 
#11
Conservative
 
#12
Fascist
 
#13
Monarchist
 
#14
Republican
 
#15
Other (Please specify below)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 142

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which of the following terms would you use to describe your ideology?  (Read 5920 times)
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

« on: November 17, 2015, 08:33:02 AM »

Libertarian (duh), liberal (as in classical), and republican (but not the party).

I don't know an awful lot about libertarianism, but one could make the case that if a Libertarian chooses to follow the non-aggression principle, they might oppose abortion. Don't know how to frame the SSM stance though.

Exactly right re: abortion. Libertarianism is fundamentally about people's rights, and the right to life is just as important if not more than the right to liberty. That's why I oppose abortion, the death penalty, and the vast majority of wars. It's a shame most conservatives (for whatever reason) only look at one of those things. It's also a shame how conservatives have linked the issue to religion, thus vastly hurting support for the opposition to abortion by needlessly linking it to a church vs. state spectrum.

The SSM thing is odd, as well. I'd guess it has something to do with religious liberty/freedom of conscience--which is valid, but to take a right from one person in order to protect another from a tyrannical government is wrong, and in this case highly unnecessary. In any case where the government oversteps their bounds in the name of anti-discrimination, it's the fault of the government, NOT the people they're attempting to protect.

yeah the non-aggression principle is bullsh!t because they also believe in property rights, which must be maintained by a system of police aggression against non-property owners

Only if the non-property owners break the Non-Aggression Principle first. That's basically the crux of the principle itself, that aggression is wrong if it's not in response to other aggression.

Certainly you have some concept of property, right? I mean, if someone broke into your house and took your laptop, certainly you would have the right to take it back, or there would be an entity to get it back for you? Or do you have no personal items, and just have to go to a People's Computer Building and do things on a random computer?

Bottom line: you have to have individual property, and like it or not, there has to be a system of protecting that property. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me, TNF, I like learning new things.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.