Patty P
Member
Just curious, I am a Conservative Libertarian
If you're not sure try this poll:
If you're not sure try this poll:
-
League Of Reason Forums will shut down 10th September 2025.
There is a thread regarding this in General Discussion.
What Do You Identify As On The Political Spectrum?
MoustafaWahby
New Member
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Dito.
Jason Boreu
New Member
Same.
It should be noted that the terms used tend to imply different ideas in different places; for example, the vertical line 'libertarian' in political compass isn't remotely the same as Libertarianism in the US which would be about 3 squares from the right hand edge and 3-5 squares down from the mid-line, whereas in most parts of the world libertarians are more typically left of centre and much closer to the bottom. US Libertarianism tends to be associated with free market laissez-faire capitalism and private property protections, both of which are more traditionally right wing politics than anti-authoritarian.
Jason Boreu
New Member
That's a very good point and in my experience i've seen something similar. The left-leaning libertarians that i've spoken to seem to have legitimate concerns about the power of government on our lives: dictating whether woman can or cannot have abortions, whether lbtq people can marry, adopt, serve in the military, etc. You can often see left-leaning libertarians marching for civil rights along with other kinds of leftists.
Meanwhile whenever i talk to right-wing libertarians in the US or my own country they only seem to really care about taxes. They claim to be concerned about government power as well but i've never seem them actually put their money where their mouth is, i've never seen a right-wing libertarian marching for woman's rights to have an abortion or gay rights to marry, etc. they only seem to pay lip-service as far as i'm aware.
Lately i've seen a few neo-nazis trying to hide behind the libertarian label but when challenged their true views become transparent.
I've also seen some right-wing libertarians claim to be anti-immigration which seems to be(in my perspective) totally contradictory towards the libertarian principle of freedom of movement.
I think what we'll ultimately get to if we continue to plumb this is that labels (in this case of political positions) are really just a very quick way to communicate a basic position but shouldn't really be considered a complete description of a person's beliefs.
The big problem, in my eyes, is when people care more about their identification with the label rather than with their reasoning for the positions those labels seek to briefly capitulate. It's fine to use a label as short-hand, but it's not fine for that short-hand to be a proxy for thinking.
The big problem, in my eyes, is when people care more about their identification with the label rather than with their reasoning for the positions those labels seek to briefly capitulate. It's fine to use a label as short-hand, but it's not fine for that short-hand to be a proxy for thinking.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
When asking a question like this, I would recommend doing a quick recap of the objective political spectrum first, cause honestly, the US and UK are so conservative, the spectrum ends for them 2 points left from the middle. Just ask someone where they would place Biden and you can see instantly how warped their perception is(No, Biden is not anywhere near the left).
Can only recommend this Americas skewed political spectrum to get back to a somewhat objectiv baseline.
Btw. I am a run of the mill socialist. And no, thats not a bad word.
Can only recommend this Americas skewed political spectrum to get back to a somewhat objectiv baseline.
Btw. I am a run of the mill socialist. And no, thats not a bad word.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Spot on .. damn, you are restoring my faith in humanity.
It seems to be about the most popular political position in Western nations since WW2 (even the traditional 'left' has moved to inhabit that ground, like Blair's New Conservatives Labour, and to be fair, it's been pretty kind to 'us' comparatively. But today, it's beginning to look ready to topple either due to being unable to extract itself from corporate agendas and address dire environmental concerns, falling rates of living standards and life expectancy, and increasing poverty, or (although linked) through resurgent autocracy.
As flawed as it might be, I'm actually somewhat more worried about what happens when the neoliberal order finally fails.
As flawed as it might be, I'm actually somewhat more worried about what happens when the neoliberal order finally fails.
australopithecus
Active Member
Anarcho-communist. Bottom left corner gang represent.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Anarcho-Bidenism is a position, right?
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I sort of... don't.
I'm pretty much a pragmatist. I can't align with any party or area of the spectrum, because my views are complex. If I had to give an answer under duress, I'd probably lean toward some sort of voluntaryism, but I sway on policies.
I used to be really big on voting, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the problems in society are baked into that system, and that the system itself is what's wrong. Democracy is a failure, and I find myself coming around to finally agreeing with Plato in one of his off-topic musings. It can't be otherwise, really, because there's no way to construct a democracy that won't lead to protectionist corruption. In my view, clinging to democracy is among the things hurting us most, because it's the nearest we can get to agreement on anything, so we cling to it as the illusion of unity, when all it will ever be is division.
I don't know what the solution is.
I'm pretty much a pragmatist. I can't align with any party or area of the spectrum, because my views are complex. If I had to give an answer under duress, I'd probably lean toward some sort of voluntaryism, but I sway on policies.
I used to be really big on voting, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the problems in society are baked into that system, and that the system itself is what's wrong. Democracy is a failure, and I find myself coming around to finally agreeing with Plato in one of his off-topic musings. It can't be otherwise, really, because there's no way to construct a democracy that won't lead to protectionist corruption. In my view, clinging to democracy is among the things hurting us most, because it's the nearest we can get to agreement on anything, so we cling to it as the illusion of unity, when all it will ever be is division.
I don't know what the solution is.
Hope there's some benign galactic power that can come and save us from ourselves?
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
I'd have to disagree strongly on the idea that pushing for democracy is holding us back.
If, by 'protectionist corruption', you mean to say that those who vote tend to do so in their own interest, even at the expense of the state at large, I'd agree that this is essentially unavoidable. I'd also argue that stronger democratic institutions is the most reliable means by which a given state can insulate itself from such driven decision making.
My understanding of democracy is that, at its most fundamental, it is the dissemination of power in a system. By running a government and its policies based on voting, you effectively empower everyone capable of voting to decide on that policy. The only other system you could institute in such a situation would be one where power is concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Maybe a council decides on the policy. Maybe a single person makes the call.
If we give up on the idea of multiple voices making decisions, the only other choice we can make in that regard is to have fewer voices make those decisions.
If the power of a state is concentrated in the hands of one person, that one person effectively has free reign to make all decisions on behalf of the state. If there exist no other institutions of power in the state, there exists nothing that could, in theory, oppose this single person. Hence, the policy implications of a bad faith actor in government are significantly larger in situations where power is concentrated.
If the power of a state is held by multiple institutions, then using government to further the agenda of a bad faith actor becomes more difficult. If only one institution of power falls to corruption, other institutions can, in theory, keep that single institution in check. It becomes necessary for bad faith actors to control multiple institutions of power in order to effectively wield the government as a means to their ends. Hence, the potential for bad faith actors to effectively commandeer a government is significantly smaller in situations where power is disseminated.
I can agree that democracy isn't always the most effective way to tackle policy; it doesn't behoove a state, for example, to dictate policy based on public opinion concerning matters that require a great degree of education and expertise to grasp In such cases, it's probably more reasonable to have policy dictated by experts in a relevant field.
Beyond that, however, this sounds a lot to me like tossing democracy aside because it has flaws inherent to its design. I'd consider that to be an unreasonable course of action. I don't call a hammer a bad means of applying force to a nail, just because the hammer itself is weaker where the handle meets the head.
Democracy isn't an illusion of unity, that ultimately causes division. It's a unifying force that can't unify literally everyone.
If, by 'protectionist corruption', you mean to say that those who vote tend to do so in their own interest, even at the expense of the state at large, I'd agree that this is essentially unavoidable. I'd also argue that stronger democratic institutions is the most reliable means by which a given state can insulate itself from such driven decision making.
My understanding of democracy is that, at its most fundamental, it is the dissemination of power in a system. By running a government and its policies based on voting, you effectively empower everyone capable of voting to decide on that policy. The only other system you could institute in such a situation would be one where power is concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Maybe a council decides on the policy. Maybe a single person makes the call.
If we give up on the idea of multiple voices making decisions, the only other choice we can make in that regard is to have fewer voices make those decisions.
If the power of a state is concentrated in the hands of one person, that one person effectively has free reign to make all decisions on behalf of the state. If there exist no other institutions of power in the state, there exists nothing that could, in theory, oppose this single person. Hence, the policy implications of a bad faith actor in government are significantly larger in situations where power is concentrated.
If the power of a state is held by multiple institutions, then using government to further the agenda of a bad faith actor becomes more difficult. If only one institution of power falls to corruption, other institutions can, in theory, keep that single institution in check. It becomes necessary for bad faith actors to control multiple institutions of power in order to effectively wield the government as a means to their ends. Hence, the potential for bad faith actors to effectively commandeer a government is significantly smaller in situations where power is disseminated.
I can agree that democracy isn't always the most effective way to tackle policy; it doesn't behoove a state, for example, to dictate policy based on public opinion concerning matters that require a great degree of education and expertise to grasp In such cases, it's probably more reasonable to have policy dictated by experts in a relevant field.
Beyond that, however, this sounds a lot to me like tossing democracy aside because it has flaws inherent to its design. I'd consider that to be an unreasonable course of action. I don't call a hammer a bad means of applying force to a nail, just because the hammer itself is weaker where the handle meets the head.
Democracy isn't an illusion of unity, that ultimately causes division. It's a unifying force that can't unify literally everyone.
Last edited:
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
I don't want to launch off into a massive ramble here, so I am going to keep it as short and sweet as I'm able to...
You've taken it one way, but there's the other: direct democracy. This would address many - not all - but many of the current woes of representative democracy, but would also introduce entirely new problems.
I think the most important point to remember when it comes to considering fundamentals of democracy is that even at its idealized best, it still represents a 'tyranny of the majority'. And another point to remember is that human majorities tend to be total fucking asshats.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Sorry. Would've responded sooner, but I was reminiscing over TJump's old thread.
Personally I take umbrage with the concept of 'tyranny of the majority', and we can discuss that if you like, but I'd consider that besides the original point. None of this could be better addressed through the concentration of power. It's by disseminating power that we best insulate ourselves from policies damaging to society at large.