Liberal or Conservative? Why? - General

Well, fiscally I believe in free markets, limited government, limited spending and deregulation of the markets. Socially, I do think many issues should be left up to individuals such as the use of drugs, you could say libertarian leaning. I do have many conservative personal thoughts, such as being pro life and against gay marriage.

Relatively conservative, I would vote in favor of legalizing Gay marriage in Ireland along with the use of recreational Cannabis, and limited abortion (If the woman's life is in danger, or if consummation was through rape). However I'd be in favor of protecting the values of the Irish countryside and heritage, language etc. I think the Gardai need more power for tackling crime and more concrete laws need to be established for protecting your home and family in the event of a forced entry, at the moment its a grey area. At the moment there are stringent licensing laws for firearms here, which is good in my opinion but its taxed to hell and back, so I'd be in favor for removing tax for licensing guns and liberalizing what requires a "restricted" license (Eg, getting rid of bans that were made under political notions) Theres also too much tax on alcohol, its hurting the publican industry, there should be incentives for going to local pubs rather than buying from an off-license.

[QUOTE=Nomystik;43737128]Well, fiscally I believe in free markets, limited government, limited spending and deregulation of the markets. Socially, I do think many issues should be left up to individuals such as the use of drugs, you could say libertarian leaning. I do have many conservative personal thoughts, such as being pro life and against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Hard to believe people still hold that belief. It won't look much better to people in the future than people who opposed interracial marriage in the 60s look to us today.

I'm a mixed bag, I am for the death penalty for people like Manson and the Boston Bombers and shit. I'm for legalizing weed, for gay marriage, pro choice, for guns (though I want regulations for gun shows). I wish we'd do more actual peacekeeping for instances like Rwanda, etc. I'd probably prefer that we didn't just hand Wall Street a blank check without them admitting to their crimes of endangering the welfare of our economy through shitty business practices.

[QUOTE=Medevila;43737186]May I ask: if you lean libertarian in your social views why do you draw the line with abortion and marriage equality? Are you religious?[/QUOTE] Hi Medevila, yes I am religious but concerning gay marriage and abortions - Regarding gay marriage, I wouldn't want gay marriage to be banned by the government, instead I favor a marriage privatization like Ron Paul, just let religious organizations decide. Government should stay out of marriage and I am sure there are plenty of churches out there who are willing to marry same sex couples. With abortions, again I wouldn't want to see the federal government involved in this issue, I believe it is a state issue though and even then, I would like to see regulations concerning abortions. These are just my personal beliefs, I know they may not be popular here but I do think that it is hypocritical for a socially leaning libertarian to want the government to enact a complete ban on these issues.

[QUOTE=Nomystik;43746347]Hi Medevila, yes I am religious but concerning gay marriage and abortions - Regarding gay marriage, I wouldn't want gay marriage to be banned by the government, instead I favor a marriage privatization like Ron Paul, just let religious organizations decide. Government should stay out of marriage and I am sure there are plenty of churches out there who are willing to marry same sex couples. [/QUOTE] lol the issue isn't finding judges to actually marry the couple. If that were the case people probably wouldn't bother with it. There are financial advantages, child custody issues, etc.

I'm a liberal. I think that the upper class and middle class should both contribute to the financial well-being of the lower class. It's simply not right that children and pets should starve just because of bad decisions someone made in the past. What sickens me is that people who are against contributing to this also want to force someone to have children if they don't want to. I also disagree with any sense of superiority among beings, including animals and children.

Though I'm not necessarily a conservative, I'm definitely on the right, with the free markets, personal responsibility, low taxes, personal liberties, etc. Perhaps I'm more libertarian than anything else... I do love me some Milton Friedman and Austrian school of economics. The only "conservative" ideals I hold on to are ending government involvement marriage and being pro life, though I understand that life and death circumstances are different matters. I didn't actually think Facepunch would have any right leaning people on it.

[QUOTE=Falstad007;43757173] ending government involvement marriage [/QUOTE] We're not trying to get the government involved in marriage. We're trying to get them out! Or at least stop using religion or senseless bigotry to justify their involvement.

[QUOTE=IrrelevantPie;43779204]We're not trying to get the government involved in marriage. We're trying to get them out! Or at least stop using religion or senseless bigotry to justify their involvement.[/QUOTE] It's a difficult situation, because what I've heard from a number of organizations that lobby for same-sex marriage is that they want the federal government to force churches to marry same-sex couples, despite that going against their religious doctrine. I believe that the tax code used for same-sex partners should differ from straight couples, because the reason straight couples get the tax breaks and incentives that they do is because they are expected to have children, whereas same-sex partners have to seek out and adopt children. I'm not saying same-sex couples shouldn't receive any benefits, they certainly deserve the health care, property inheritance, visiting rights, etc, I believe the tax code should be a little different because of the different circumstances.

[QUOTE=Falstad007;43792635]It's a difficult situation, because what I've heard from a number of organizations that lobby for same-sex marriage is that they want the federal government to force churches to marry same-sex couples, despite that going against their religious doctrine. I believe that the tax code used for same-sex partners should differ from straight couples, because the reason straight couples get the tax breaks and incentives that they do is because they are expected to have children, whereas same-sex partners have to seek out and adopt children. I'm not saying same-sex couples shouldn't receive any benefits, they certainly deserve the health care, property inheritance, visiting rights, etc, I believe the tax code should be a little different because of the different circumstances.[/QUOTE] You do know that a whole chunk of married same-sex folks want to adopt/have kids right? It'd be crazy discriminatory to tax same-sex couples differently.

[QUOTE=Levithan;43792755]You do know that a whole chunk of married same-sex folks want to adopt/have kids right? It'd be crazy discriminatory to tax same-sex couples differently.[/QUOTE] I realize that, and believe that the tax breaks on the records would begin to apply once they've adopted. It would be discriminatory to give same-sex couples with children less than any other people who have children.

For the most part, I am liberal. I think that the rich should contribute some of their massive wealth to help some of the less fortunate people in society. Not everyone can become rich in a capitalist society, and it seems to me that those who get to the top 20% or so, should pay more to help those in the bottom 20%. Implementing a system where the rich/upper middle-class pay more taxes benefits everybody, as those people will still have quite a lot of money, yet more people are also able to creep out of the poverty line. I also think that higher taxes are acceptable, as long as social benefits such as universal health care come into play.

Libertarian [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;43060884]Why can't I be both? I'm socially Liberal, but very economically Conservative. I believe that no-one has the right to judge others in society based on who they are or what they do on the grounds that morals are subjective and shouldn't be applied by law to the general populous. This also means that I support limited government and free market capitalism as I don't think the government should intervene in people's lives or the market if they can help themselves because who is the government to say what is right for me or anyone else? Sure, there are people who can't help themselves and the goverment should be there for them but only with the aim of raising them to a point where they can help themselves. It's important to mention that the OP only talks about a single type of Liberalism, called Modern Liberalism, which is more akin to Socialism than the original meaning of Liberalism, the original being Classical Liberalism which is essentially a form of Conservatism in itself. The only real difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberals believe is Freedom from things and Conservatives believe in Freedom to do things.[/QUOTE] High Five

[i]Progressive[/i] conservative is what I like. Change is important, but it is also important to not allow various shitty things without giving them a second thought.

I'm not American but I think it's kind of bullshit that you have to define yourself one way or the other, why not just say "I agree with X on Y, but Z makes a good point"?

[QUOTE=Qbopper;43900296]I'm not American but I think it's kind of bullshit that you have to define yourself one way or the other, why not just say "I agree with X on Y, but Z makes a good point"?[/QUOTE] but you don't and its just a question of which political party you personally like the most, its not like european or parlament goverments where you can have 3-5 parties in power, there really is only the republicans and the democrats here and voting for a 3rd party is just throwing your vote away. i think if the republicans don't start changing their weird ass backwards social stances on abortion and homosexuality and in general throttle back on the bible-thumping they would be a force to take down the democrats, they COULD have the latino vote and the vote of many minority groups if they would only start to become a more inclusive party. studies have shown that while many minorities vote democrat, the latino community by in large has republican values they just are disenfranchised by the republican's minority bashing. i really just don't think the republicans have any chance anymore unless they get with the times, and by that i mean stop doing like what they just did in kansas and make it legal to discriminate on the grounds of suspicon. i don't agree with the democrats on their heavy handed goverment policies, plus they are even worse when it comes to transparency. obama's whitehouse is a perfect example of what i hate with the democrats, he's used the espionage act to silence journalists more times in his 6 years than in the last 40 years in in total and eric holder has done tons of shit that should have gotten him impeached instead he'll keep his job since the senate is democrat controled.

I guess I would be considered a radical liberal. Universal Health Care. Subsidised universities. Basic Human Income. All people are equal unless proven otherwise. I don't see how Fiscal conservatism will achieve progress, and Social conservatism is simply backwards and archaic.

I'm a palelolibertarian. Bassicly i am fiscally conservative. The only goverment regulation i want in the market is child labour testing food in resturants and against fraud. What differences me from libertarians though is that i want to have stronger borders and empower our culture.

[QUOTE=KD007;43896106][I]Progressive[/I] conservative is what I like. Change is important, but it is also important to not allow various shitty things without giving them a second thought.[/QUOTE] I've never understood the idea of a [I]progressive[/I] anything. I want the best possible solution. If that happens to be what we currently have, then I want to keep it... if it happens to be something else, then I want that other thing. I have literally zero desire to change for the sake of change and see no reason to think that change is inherently good. I see three massive, foundational differences between conservative and liberal thought: 1) Generally, liberals believe people are naturally good while conservatives believe people to be naturally bad. This shows up in a massive range of issues. One simple example is crime and poverty. Liberals argue that poverty has a corrupting effect on the natural goodness of people that causes them to commit crime. Conservatives believe, generally, that crime is more likely to be the cause of the poverty than the other way around since people don't need a cause to do bad, everyone has it in them already. The statistics show correlations, not causations, and because of this the basic difference in starting point leads to opposite conclusions. This difference leads to insanely different policies as well. Liberals tend to want to get rid of the poverty by giving more money to the poor through subsidies or direct payments while conservatives argue that problems like the destruction of the family in the inner city causes a death of character and therefore more crime, which in turn leads to a cycle of poverty. 2) Trust in government. This leans on the first point. Liberals seem to generally believe that government is both trustworthy and efficient when compared to both individuals and business. They also tend to trust people who work for the government more than people who work in the private sector, and therefore feel comfortable giving them a lot of power. On the other hand, conservatives have a deep distrust of the government. This difference directly leads to liberals always using the government as the major tool to reach their goal while conservatives tend to shy away from using government and in fact work to make government play a smaller role whenever possible. 3) The last huge difference is the end goal. Liberals tend to attempt utopia, while conservatives tend to try and get the best reality. This shows up in issues like "blaming the victim." I often see liberals claim that it's wrong to give the advice to women to not walk out alone at night, and that instead we should focus on stopping all and every attempted assault and rape. On the other hand conservatives tend to try and stop assault and rape, but with the knowledge that it's impossible to get rid of it all. This leads to the advice about taking precautions, even though you weren't doing anything wrong. The liberal is focused on the perfect world where no one rapes. The conservative is focused on the best known reality: the one where the least number of people are raped, but with the knowledge that some people will be raped no matter what. [editline]15th February 2014[/editline] I'm a mix of libertarianism and conservatism, personally.

Definitely conservative. I think that their social standing is a great thing to believe in. Now, I don't agree with everything that some republicans do, but I agree with them more than the liberals. ~Sir Jin

[QUOTE=Sir Jin;43926973]Definitely conservative. I think that their social standing is a great thing to believe in. Now, I don't agree with everything that some republicans do, but I agree with them more than the liberals. ~Sir Jin[/QUOte] We don't do signatures here. IMO I'm fiscally conservative but not in the way the current conservative parties are. I think money should be conserved, but not by lowering taxes and decreasing public funding. Wealthy people need to be taxed MUCH more than they are. Also, social issues are more important to me than economic. You can fix the economy if it goes straight to hell, but when laws oppressing the people are passed, they're waayyyy harder to get overturned. Socially liberal all the way.

[QUOTE=InUndenial;43934222]We don't do signatures here. IMO I'm fiscally conservative but not in the way the current conservative parties are. I think money should be conserved, but not by lowering taxes and decreasing public funding. Wealthy people need to be taxed MUCH more than they are. Also, social issues are more important to me than economic. You can fix the economy if it goes straight to hell, but when laws oppressing the people are passed, they're waayyyy harder to get overturned. Socially liberal all the way.[/QUOTE] You cant be fiscally conservative while wanting to heavily tax people.

[QUOTE=KD007;43896106][I]Progressive[/I] conservative is what I like. Change is important, but it is also important to not allow various shitty things without giving them a second thought.[/QUOTE] This doesn't even make any sense. Progressive and conservative are antonyms and parties that call themselves progressive conservatives are just conservatives trying to rebrand themselves.

My political views have changed a lot over the past year or so. I believe in the natural right of humans to pursue whatever social path they choose (besides marrying a kid, dog or table, and shooting heroin in the middle of the street) so long as it doesn't put anyone else in danger. The government should exist minimally to regulate fraud and hear court cases and protect people from rape and murder or something Maybe it's a utopian idea So I mean, you could call me a libertarian (???) or "classical" liberal but I don't really give a shit

[QUOTE=sgman91;43926162]I've never understood the idea of a [I]progressive[/I] anything. I want the best possible solution. If that happens to be what we currently have, then I want to keep it... if it happens to be something else, then I want that other thing. I have literally zero desire to change for the sake of change and see no reason to think that change is inherently good. I see three massive, foundational differences between conservative and liberal thought: 1) Generally, liberals believe people are naturally good while conservatives believe people to be naturally bad. This shows up in a massive range of issues. One simple example is crime and poverty. Liberals argue that poverty has a corrupting effect on the natural goodness of people that causes them to commit crime. Conservatives believe, generally, that crime is more likely to be the cause of the poverty than the other way around since people don't need a cause to do bad, everyone has it in them already. The statistics show correlations, not causations, and because of this the basic difference in starting point leads to opposite conclusions. This difference leads to insanely different policies as well. Liberals tend to want to get rid of the poverty by giving more money to the poor through subsidies or direct payments while conservatives argue that problems like the destruction of the family in the inner city causes a death of character and therefore more crime, which in turn leads to a cycle of poverty. 2) Trust in government. This leans on the first point. Liberals seem to generally believe that government is both trustworthy and efficient when compared to both individuals and business. They also tend to trust people who work for the government more than people who work in the private sector, and therefore feel comfortable giving them a lot of power. On the other hand, conservatives have a deep distrust of the government. This difference directly leads to liberals always using the government as the major tool to reach their goal while conservatives tend to shy away from using government and in fact work to make government play a smaller role whenever possible. 3) The last huge difference is the end goal. Liberals tend to attempt utopia, while conservatives tend to try and get the best reality. This shows up in issues like "blaming the victim." I often see liberals claim that it's wrong to give the advice to women to not walk out alone at night, and that instead we should focus on stopping all and every attempted assault and rape. On the other hand conservatives tend to try and stop assault and rape, but with the knowledge that it's impossible to get rid of it all. This leads to the advice about taking precautions, even though you weren't doing anything wrong. The liberal is focused on the perfect world where no one rapes. The conservative is focused on the best known reality: the one where the least number of people are raped, but with the knowledge that some people will be raped no matter what. [editline]15th February 2014[/editline] I'm a mix of libertarianism and conservatism, personally.[/QUOTE] do you really think that your current brand of american capitalism is the best it gets, and that it can be sustained indefinitely? your consumerist economy can be sustained for all of time? its hard to believe that people cant see the shortcomings of consumerism or how we are exhausting finite resources at an unprecedented rate. its really difficult to argue with somebody who thinks that poverty is the result of crime. there are studies and statistics showing that poverty is a cycle, if you're born poor, you'll probably stay poor. you're basically saying that every poor person is a criminal? thats how you defend your conservative ideology? hard to believe. if you have no money, few positive role models, are given terrible teachers and are never pushed into a "legitimate meaningful life", then you are statistically more likely to fall between the cracks. not to mention youre just straight up wrong saying liberals believe in utopia. just finish the fountainhead did we? are you really just that ignorant of what the other side views that you think all liberals think all people are naturally good? do you have any idea what youre talking about? ive never met a liberal (being one myself) who trusts the government completely or isn't aware of the problems with public sector labor. with that being said, the government exists to help us, whereas businesses and the private sector exist only to return money to investors. how can you trust the latter more than the former, especially when you elect one and one is publicly accountable, whereas the other is not? its an imperfect solution to an imperfect world.

[QUOTE=InfoWarrior;43934244]You cant be fiscally conservative while wanting to heavily tax people.[/QUOTE] I didn't say heavy taxing. A teacher might struggle to pay the taxes the same way someone with inherited wealth struggles to pay for another helicopter. It isn't right; middle and low classes shouldn't pay more so that the rich can pay less, so that they can have extra luxuries. I suppose in that way I'm liberal, then. But the name doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=InUndenial;43934408]I didn't say heavy taxing. A teacher might struggle to pay the taxes the same way someone with inherited wealth struggles to pay for another helicopter. It isn't right; middle and low classes shouldn't pay more so that the rich can pay less, so that they can have extra luxuries. I suppose in that way I'm liberal, then. But the name doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] This isn't fiscal conservatism then, it's a more progressive socialist approach to the idea of taxation (at least from what I remember). Fiscal conservatism would be allowing people to keep a vast majority of their income by removing, or lowering taxes to something small. Then forcing the government to avoid expenditures. Your views, by and large, sound more like a liberal view of things. Those who make the most, and can give the most, pay the most in for the betterment of society. Whilst the state uses this money to provide services to those who require them.

Green, why do I have to liberal or conservative? I want a strong economy based on environmental choices, while still providing an enjoyable lifestyle for my fellow Americans. We don't have to make great sacrifices to be more environmentally friendly. Hell we can keep most of what we have now, we just have to change a few habits and substitute oil-based products with soy/hemp/lipid-based polymers. This means that we need green-based politics, which is what I support.

I don't follow either. I consider myself to be libertarian more than anything but I agree with a little bit of what every side says. The liberals and conservatives in office are all crooks, most of anyone in office is a crook. I don't like being associated with crooks.