Let's discuss politics

I'm what's probably best described as a Social Democrat. I believe in a high degree of civil liberty and responsibility and a decent degree of government intervention in essential or peculiar industries like healthcare, water/electricity etc. but still support a free market for most other goods and services. I believe capitalism can create incentive to improve living conditions and innovate because of the possibility of financial reward, but that the market should be restricted in places to safeguard the well being of all people. Of course what that means in practice is highly contentious.

In truth I'm not half as informed as I should be to make broad political statements, but social democracy is what I tend towards and what I consider both feasible and ethically responsible.

I've personally always found the Political Compass much more useful than generic labels, especially when the definition of left vs. right can vary so dramatically between nations. Rather than simply attempting to place oneself on the left vs. right line, it breaks things out into economic and social scales. It also helps reduce the ambiguity that is always inherent in language, which I'm a big fan of.

As for myself, I consider myself a "Social Democrat" if we want to stick with labels, and am placed pretty firmly the quadrant the Compass refers to as "left libertarian" -- I have broadly left-wing economic views, and am what I would call socially progressive.

If anyone else is interested in seeing where they lie on the Compass, I'd be curious to see how we all stack up. I've started a crowd chart here (edit: updated with results as of 2018-06-03 00:45 UTC) -- please feel free to add yourself and throw a link up as a reply.

Edit: Given the fact that there seems to be a pretty strong preference for the bottom left, myself included, I wonder what this means for the diversity of opinions here. I posted my thoughts on this here, but that thread is pretty dead... I'd love to see some more thoughts on what this could mean for Tildes.

So rather than outright labeling myself, I thought I'd give a quick rundown on where I fall on a variety of social, economic, science, and foreign policy issues (as an American). I'll let you to the labeling as it doesn't really matter that much to me.

Social

• Everyone, and I mean literally every person, has a statistically equal chance of meaningfully contributing to society. That means that we have a public interest in making sure that everyone has a materially equal opportunity to contribute. Perfect equality is not and should not be the goal. Equal opportunity should be. Finding evidence of equal opportunity is hard, but should still be attempted.
• Unless there is a really fucking big and widely agreed good reason, no government should interfere with anyone's natural rights. If voting is a feature of being represented in government (and I would prefer that it is failing some perfectly benevolent dictator that I really struggle to trust anyway), everyone of age should be allowed, informed if necessary, and encouraged to vote.
• Fairness is not equality in outcomes. Fairness is equality in the starting point, equality in rules, and equality in enforcement.
• I would perfectly comfortable with a 100% estate tax. You did not earn what your parents earned. You are your own person with your own chance to succeed. I think a lot of our problems as a society come from inherited wealth. I happen to think 100% estate tax would probably be a bit too much (every parent wants to feel like they have provided for their children), but if some group decided at some point to institute one, I'm not complaining.
• My chief concern when it comes to a democracy is making sure that it is reasonably free from overt corruption. This means freeing elected officials from some of the enormous pressures of fundraising for their parties. It means maintaining reasonable restrictions on a lobbyist's access to a lawmaker. It means making sure the president of the united states isn't acting in his own private interests on a given policy. I do not go so far as to believe Citizens United must be reversed entirely (I agree that corporations are run by people), but there does need to be transparency in all money spent on political speech. We must know who is speaking to judge the speech and put it in appropriate context. Large donors must not be allowed to hide their donations to major political organizations, either in terms of lobbying or policy making. I would be in favor of publicly funding political campaigns, though I would also be worried about whether candidates could meaningfully break though the noise to reach voters and how much funding PACs have in comparison to the candidates for office.

Economic

• I hate minimum wage limits. I do not think they are a good way to enforce either a good quality of living or economic equality in opportunity. Minimum wage restrictions depress job availability for positions impacted by the minimum wage and they contribute to inflation (which negates the whole point of a minimum wage). If you have more people with more money but do nothing else, inflation rises. This is just basic shit. I am deeply frustrated when people cast being against minimum wages as hating poor people. Partisans do this to shut down conversations. Instead, I want a maximum wage limit. As a ratio of the lowest earner in the company, I want it so the top earner in a company can only earn so much more. For starters we can say 350 times and have a meaningful, if not very painful regulation.
• I think the government has a role to play in a well-regulated market, with a free market as the goal even if it can't be reached. A market has tendencies due to the actors within it. Given unions too much power and you have an imbalance. Give owners too much power, and you have an imbalance. Give consumers too much power and you have an imbalance. A good government needs to ensure that these three market forces have roughly equal bargaining power, vis-à-vis one another. That means publicizing information that might reasonably impact consumer decisions (i.e., on a product's health impacts), securing workers rights and providing mechanisms for them to meaningfully make use of them when an owner/manager abuses them (workers compensation, labor rules, etc.), and making sure that owners are reasonably free to reap the benefits of their company and structure it however they wish (within reason).
• Taxes should be used to fund projects that are in the public interest (especially public goods), in proportions decided by elected officials. If you do not wish to pay a tax, you do not need to be in society. You may choose to leave and go somewhere else. I hear Antarctica has some real estate showing up these days. Taxes do not get to be line-item-vetoed by its populace. So long as the elected officials are working in good faith to ensure funds are being properly used for projects that are in the public interest, there cannot be said to be any misrepresentation.

Science

• Science is in the public interest to fund and research in a profit-neutral way. No well regulated market will gladly spend millions or billions in research on most scientific questions that would advance either our understanding or our ability to impact the world around us if there's no reasonable angle on profit. Many scientific questions that would advance us as a people do not include a profit component (some do, and those can be left to the private sector generally). That said, when the government is the gatekeeper of funds, scientists will need to have a more specific goal in mind than "to see what we get." The scientific method requires a thesis to be proven wrong. So there has to be some form of auditing going on to make sure that funds are being properly distributed. I do get into a harry situation when it comes to distributing funds based on likely impact, which is where my gut takes me, but I think that letting the nuts and bolts of this be decided by competent specialists does just fine.
• Global warming is happening already and will have (is already having) foreseeable impacts everywhere. Wet areas will get more wet; dry areas will get more dry; weather-based disasters will get more frequent and severe. So we need to be ready for all of these things, even if we can't necessarily summon the political will power to stop the contributing substances that are driving them. We need to invest, now, in better flooding management in wet areas (because they will flood more and worse).
• Nuclear energy is great. Invest more in it and make sure it can run as a stopgap to fill the holes in the grid's current and future energy demand that other, renewable sources of energy cannot fill. Continuing to move away from dirtier energy sources toward cleaner ones helps us immensely in grappling with the likely impacts of global warming (though obviously it is not something we can meaningfully reverse without technology that can scrub the atmosphere of warming particles). That said, I do not agree that moving away from these fossil fuel based energy sources must be sudden or must leave people trained to work in those fields cut and dry. Reasonable investments have to go into making sure there is as minimal pain in the communities most heavily impacted by these shifts as possible.

Foreign Policy

• I think the world benefits generally from having the United States as the hegemonic power. As far as hegemonic powers go, the United States has been quite willing to let most other countries decide their own policies. I see a retreat to American isolationism as increasing the risk for war in the world, even if the current brand of American isolationism is neither extreme nor cutting back on military funding. Providing leadership opportunities through its absence for powers that would compete directly with the United States for global influence is a strategic mistake to US interests, even as it might be in the world's long term best interests.
• I do not think the world benefits much from the United States insisting on spreading democracy ... much anywhere. State building is too expensive, it's too costly to human life, and it doesn't work. Our failures in Iraq led directly toward vulnerabilities that allowed ISIS control of much of the northern part of the country. We have still left our Kurdish allies largely abandoned within the structure of a state formed by the British, a state that largely hates them and would seek to mitigate their political power to rule themselves as quickly as it can figure out how to stop the rest of its nation from burning. Afghanistan is still struggling to make meaningful progress toward becoming a working federal state. And Libya ... Well. I can't think of a better poster child for failed humanitarian intervention. The sooner the United States re-learns that it is better to let the bad guy run his fiefdom than to topple him ourselves, the better off we and the world will be.

I can't really think of many other broad political statements that I would make. How would you describe me?

Edit: Morning essays come with many errors. I fixed a few.

I've never been a fan of the "team" approach to politics, and feel it's doing more harm than good at this point. Instead of latching onto a particular ideology, I prefer to look at each issue independently and decide based on what I know about it what the right approach is to that particular issue. If my view on it happens to be considered the liberal or Democrat position that's fine, or if it happens to match the conservative or Republican approach that's fine too, or libertarian, or socialist, or Brain Slug, or none of the above...

I'm not sure that I have a single ideology - if I do then it is something constituted by my own personal opinions on various matters. I call myself a MAGA populist in the sense that I do want America to be great, and I'm happy it has been improving so much under Donald Trump's Presidency - and I don't know what the best system is for everyone. I don't think I (or most anyone else) have the full breadth of knowledge necessary to decide what model is a one-size-fits-all politically or economically.

There are some general preferences and observations I hold, like:

• erring on liberty rather than authority when possible
• sticking with what works okay more often than radically changing things (but still trying new things in experimental sandboxes)
• negotiation and trade are far more preferable than violence and war
• laws and acting as-if they are important keeps society stable
• a collection of individuals is often smarter than a single person (but an individual is often smarter than a mob)
• oligarchies tend to form, corruption/conspiracies are a real and tangible cancer in our societies
• local > non-local
• decentralization trends more resilient than centralization
• There are real and legitimate dangers, and it's safer to be considered too dangerous to fuck with than to be a pushover
• most people are irrational, most are brainwashed in one way or another - and most of those get angry at the suggestion
• nihilism and postmodernism are dangerous ideologies
• we're in an age of technological novelty like none humanity has ever had in recorded history - there are a million ways things could go from here. Anyone claiming history repeats itself is not thinking.
• There are people who oppose most everything listed here, and some of them are in positions of considerable power/influence.
• etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic. There are paths we can follow which would improve everyone's quality of life tremendously, and there are paths which could be very dark. I think moreso than anything else, we're on the cusp of an age where humanity is realizing that many of the problems that we have been faced with which seemed intractable only had substance in our imaginations, and by changing our thoughts and ways of seeing reality, they can be transformed into situations that everyone benefits from. Some people have been saying this phenomenon is what will bring us to a Golden Age - I think they may have it right.

I would consider myself to be what we would call a "democratic socialist" in the US. Basically, a strongly regulated free market, a solid emphasis on equal opportunity and fairness, a firm hand on reducing or eliminating governmental corruption, a focus on soft power and diplomacy internationally, and a very technocratic & science/data driven attitude of constantly looking at where / what can be improved upon. I'm also a strong environmentalist and would support bringing back or strengthening many public programs (for example, the introduction of a basic income, returning the USPS to a fully public service, single payer health insurance, etc.)

I explicitly reject democracy (including the erroneous notion that authority comes from "the people"), capitalism (particularly, the idea of treating people are mere "human resources"), communism, and secularism (especially the heresy of separation of Church and State).

Ideally, I would prefer a Catholic monarchy, where the monarch can be deposed by a pope (a real one, not a fraud like Francis) or perhaps the leading bishop of the nation (at least when there isn't a pope to make the call), but otherwise has absolute civil authority (which is itself limited as defined by Catholic theology), and delegates it to subordinates whose job is primarily to represent the monarch.

Catholic morality should be the basis for all criminal law. All criminals should be given a fair trial (somehow avoiding negligent juries that just want to get home to watch TV), and after a verdict is reached, a just punishment. Murderers (including abortionists) should be executed. Selling or distributing contraception publicly should be illegal. Marriage should be explicitly defined as relationships where procreation is the goal, and upheld as the only legal way to have sexual relations (but without wasting time going after those who don't publicly flaunt their fornication). Divorce/separation should not ever be granted by civil authorities, but recognised when permitted by (and to the extent permitted by) the Church's authority.

Self-defense (which effectively requires guns) is a natural human right, and not subject to civil authority.

Hey, halwoods. Since it seems you only registered a couple of days ago I just wanted you (and anyone of the newcomers) to know there was another political thread not long ago. Not to discourage you posting about this or any discussion, but just so you have some background. You should also be sure to check the FAQ thread, especially the two threads linked there about talking politics.

As an aside, I think the topic of your post is too broad and that tends to derive in a discussion of feelings that can get pretty heated. But hopefully everyone will keep it civil, maybe will see some changes since the last thread.

Welcome!

If we assume that the demographics here will largely be similar to reddit then what we could assume is:

60% of reddit is non-American, mostly western countries. Right wing politics of western countries aligns with left wing politics of America
40% is American, split roughly in half on left/right.

So roughly 80% will fit the American-left archetype, while 20% will be American-right, or considered European far-right. I think it's important to clarify American left/right vs European left/right in these international political conversations as the two spectrums are clearly very very different.

With that said. I'm UK and largely support Labour's most recent policies.

As for Green politics, they're nice in theory but pragmatism is always a good question. I'd rather vote against right wing policies for a non-perfect candidate than vote for a perfect set of policies that would never win and only give greater chance to a party whose policies I despise winning. I believe a lot of debate has occurred in the US over whether that is precisely what the American Green party leader did in the last election. Meanwhile here in the UK I can't see the Green party being effective, they aren't large/organised enough to win an election and if by some bizarre miracle they did then it would be a disaster as they don't have the structure for it. As they grow that might change but if Labour continues to move left then they are more or less replacing them.

On immigration I'm in the middle (eu middle) as longterm issues arise with migrants. Keeping good controls and numbers lower over time means lower numbers when the longterm new problems arise which makes them significantly easier to deal with than having a problem arise 20 years down the line after absolutely enormous migrant waves. Not against it, nor have anything against migrants, I just recognise that issues do occur and being realistic with them is something we ought to be doing.

Tl;dr: Pro social safety nets. Pro peace. Pro love. Middle(european version) on immigration.

I don't follow lables enough to know if there's one that fits me but the new tax bill was nice because I pay less than I did last year.
I believe abortion shouldn't be a political argument and not regulated at the federal level because there are extreme idealogical differences not only in states but cities.
Getting rid of guns will not change violence levels, it will just change those to knives. Also that uk judge that wants to dull down knives should be stabbed for comedic effect.

Centre-left. Ish.

I would seriously question the usefulness of identification by currently well known broad political ideology. In practical scenarios, you are always a bit this and other times a bit that. In my experience pure ideology only used in highly controversial topics. Saying for example that I'm leaning left also can mean very different things in countries and regions, in Central Europe, a right tends to favour big centralized government while in the US traditionally the opposite is true.
Having said that I, for example, tend to support social justice movements but I think going extreme with them like the 'PC war' is just silly. On the economic issues, I support full heartedly the free markets and prefer as less regulation as possible, however, I understand and support policies which minimize the market forces in areas where natural resources, therefore, natural monopolies occur. And I can go on and on with these dichotomies.

ps: There is a good reason there are no general political topics here:
https://tildes.net/~tildes/4v/thoughts_on_handling_political_content_on_tildes

I would consider myself too a social democrat but the last elections, in Italy, I voted for a party (+Europa) that would fall a bit more to the centre. My reasoning was that I really like their firm position on social issues and for the need of a more integrated EU. I also trust some of the party's representatives. I'm not keen on all their points pertaining economy, as I lean more left, but still I find them based on solid reasoning and I believe them to be all the opposite of empty promises (they are more like hard truths)
Also I knew that if the party didn't get 3% its votes would go to Democratic Party, which was my second option, so I'm rather content with my decision. I just had to accept the total defeat of both parties
As you may or may not know Italy is in a bit of a political turmoil right now, but it seems that we will have a government at last, though it's political stability remains to be seen

If I had to give myself a label I'd describe myself as a digital era reformist. I believe in reuniting modern western democracy with its core foundation, the Athenian model. I believe that representative government is an outmoded institution that is wedged between the individual and their voice, and that their voice and ability to directly influence policy has been obscured as a consequence of the technological restrictions of the pre-digital era.

To put it succinctly, we will soon have the ability to process each individual's vote on every issue and assimilate each and every single individual's vote in a meaningful way. I believe that in the wake of the digital revolution each citizen will have the privilege to directly influence, shape and vote on policy from the comfort and privacy of their home.

The era of digital enlightenment is on the horizon, and through universal connectivity everyone will have the right and ability to actively participate in shaping every aspect of society.

I've become a lot more left recently, but two things for me are strong.

1. I hate Trump
2. Tiocfaidh ár lá

OG Federalist, right here. Alexander Hamilton had pretty much everything right, although I would argue for some term limits on the executive, rather than election for life. Also, understandably, his economic policies would be different in the context of today's world.

I tend to vote for NDP candidates in elections even when there's basically no chance for them winning but I think my personal political views might be all over the place. Like, economically I believe capitalism was successful but we're in the natural outcome and it's only going to lead to more suffering. On the other hand I also don't see much hope in communism ever being properly implemented and socialist states are always rife with corruption. I think I don't super believe in people's ability to organize and the adage that people who seek power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be in power is very true.

Moderate libertarian from the US here. I have a lot of sympathy for Voluntaryist/Anarchist thought but we're not culturally there yet. Taxation isn't theft if its not culturally considered theft, and humans are ultimately subjective creatures.

I support evidence based policy and the abolition of arbitrary law including broad occupational licencing, arbitrary visa issuance numbers, and arbitrary firearm regulation.

As long as coercive states are deemed culturally legitimate, I support those that act as guarantors of civil and human rights (including non-discrimination and freedom of migration). I generally oppose state economic interference for both regulation and subsidy because the infrastructure of regulation is tremendously vulnerable to private sector rent seeking. Strong, complex regulation, along with an equally complex legal system, serves to entrench existing interests and reduces economic dynamism. Even the state's role of promoting competition should be called into question.

Personal and economic freedoms are vastly more important to me than silly libertarian purity tests like opposing drivers licences, public schooling, or state-sponsored healthcare. If consumer needs are dire in those areas, a free market will rise to the occasion to fill them.

I'm a Democrat with socialist leanings and have been one my entire life It makes me sick to see what FDR and, to a lesser extent, LBJ accomplished socially being methodically disassembled by the current administration. I believe strongly that we need social safety nets and that we can't rely on private charities to provide for the poor, mostly because their assistance comes with strings attached. I loathe the insertion of religious dogma into our country's policies. I've never resented having to pay taxes. I've been alive long enough to see the American middle class being left behind by their government's business friendly policies and I don't think the internet has done our political will a bit of good. I am watching in horror the last shreds of global goodwill for my country being laid waste by an out of control demagogue whose own party lacks the will to rein him in. I support the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian influence on our election and am not at all convinced that Donald Trump is qualified to hold office. I've voted in every election, national, state and local since I became eligible to vote in 1972

Like some others here, I consider myself to be a social democrat, but I also believe in well-regulated and successful capitalism.

My views have shaped my game in NationStates, a neat little political choice game. Take a look at my countries info/main page to get an idea. And yes, these are really my views (although the game has not asked me my opinion yet on hundreds of issues that could further shape my country, as issues only occur once every 6 hours at the most).

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=bearical

Politically left. I've been an Independent all my life except for a few months in 2016 when I switched to Democrat so I could vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries (I live in a closed primary state).

Basically I believe each individual should be free to live their life any way they see fit so long as they aren't harming anyone, placing an undue burden on society, or preventing anyone from doing the same.

Accidents of birth or circumstance should never determine a person's place or role in society.

I think all laws should be evidence-based. Laws should be shown to have some kind of net positive effect on society in order to be passed and be enforceable.

I'm not a fan of any of the political parties here in the U.S. and the way I vote really depends on the person who's running for office. If I like most of the candidate's platform, they're capable of doing a fine job in office without doing much (if any) damage, and they're not a terrible person, I will vote for them. I can say that in 2016, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and Gary Johnson in the general election. According to the Political Compass Test, I'm a left-libertarian.

Political Compass Results

I’d describe myself as a centre-right liberal if that’s such a thing

You know that 4-quadrant political graph? I'm in the bottom left corner.

Surprised not to see more socialists here, definitely expected right libertarians though.

As for me, I am academically a Marxist. Politically this tends to lend itself to socialism of course but I tend to just say I'm a leftist for several reasons which I'd rather not share. My views can be thought of lining up with newer Marxist thought and especially 20th century critical theory. The most important thing to understand about my politics is I am anti-capitalist and this is why I joined tildes. Non-profit communities are very attractive to me and so are ones which are free open and source.

I have several reservations about this quite controversial label:

Firstly, I am not a tankie or a Stalin apologist. I do think being critical to the USSR is important and especially Stalin, but in the same breath I will be sure to criticize the U.S. and it's atrocities just as harshly.

Also, I am willing to heathily debate someone if they'd like but don't respond to people who immediately attack my position, Id prefer a critical polemic and respectful (as much as is allowed in a heated debate) discourse.

Hopefully the political aspect to this site can be developed in a way which maintains quality.

Far left.