Political Identity Crisis

I've been having trouble lately with pinning down my political identity. One thing i'm sure of is that i'm a civil libertarian, but that only takes care of the social issues. When it comes to economics, I tend to drift back and forth between socialist and libertarian. I understand the reasoning behind economic libertarianism, but it's sometehing I have doubts about. Likewise with socialism.I'm not sure if there is a way to bring my socialist tendencies together with the individualism of the libertarian view. The conflict between the two seem to be irreconcilable, but maybe someone can help me with that.Have any of you gone through a period where you struggled with this? If so, how did you ultimately arrive at a point of clarity?

Just kidding. I'll leave this message as the most recent for a bit, and then promote the sucker to the "Coffee House".Adminnemooseus

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, my political beliefs, no matter how ill-defined, are in direct opposition to everything George W. Bush stands for. Any and all shots at him are implied.

Why do you need to choose a label? How about just considering yourself an independent, and voting on each issue and each candidate on the merits?For myself, I don't think libertarianism works. It seems to be based on a romanticized idea about people that does not correspond to the way people really behave.As an independent, I can recognize that health care is broken and we need to consider a governmental system for that. At the same time, I can recognize that going the whole hog into socialism (state ownership of all industry) would be very damaging to the most creative economic forces.Oh, and as an independent I can recognize that today's Republican party is under the control of extremists, and thus is not currently worthy of my vote.

quote:

---

I can recognize that going the whole hog into socialism (state ownership of all industry) would be very damaging to the most creative economic forces.

---

Not that it seems to do any good, but before the thread goes off into another nonsense discussion, I should mention that socialism does not mean state ownership of all industry. In fact, the goal of the more traditional socialists, the anarchists and the communists, would like to do away with the state altogether.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Try the Political Compass. It might help you pin down where you stand politically.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

I've been having trouble lately with pinning down my political identity.

---

Go to the library and do a whole lot of reading.-

quote:

---

When it comes to economics, I tend to drift back and forth between socialist and libertarian.

---

Yep. Since both socialism and libertarianism are actually social and political theories (and at least socialism is a catch-all word for a wide variety of political and social theories), it appears that you really do need to do a whole lot of reading.-

quote:

---

Have any of you gone through a period where you struggled with this?

---

Yep. Not so much in terms of labels -- I have been pretty comfortable calling myself an anarchist/communist/socialist since high school -- as much as it was in figuring out exactly what it that I believed, what I accepted, and, especially, trying to figure out how much of my beliefs were mutually inconsisten.-

quote:

---

If so, how did you ultimately arrive at a point of clarity?

---

Well, it never actually ends -- I would hope that you never reach a point where you are absolutely certain of your beliefs and your stances on issues. But there did come a point of clarity, where things finally began to make a lot of sense. That came after...a whole lot of reading.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

And one day you'll die. The pursuit of life? Uncertainty...This message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:11 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:11 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:12 AM

Actually, the Republicans made it pretty simple for me, when they turned over their party to the religious right and corporate corruption.

One clear historical message rings true from the 20th century, and that is the great murderer of the 20th century was the State in it's attempts at social engineering. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, the Apartheid architects, the Islamacists, etc,...all shared a common trait, empowerment of the State for the theoritical betterment of the people.Imo, socialism is more often than not a disease and cancer on soceity. Go with your libertarian feelings.

Do you pay insurance?Insurance is socialism, by definition.Some things are best done as individuals. Some things are best accomplished for everybody when done collectively. Only an idiot would claim that one or the other way was all you needed.

Nothing wrong, or maybe not nothing, but certainly volunteer socialism is qualitatively different than state coerced socialism. Heck, the family is socialist under the broader meaning of the term, but raising a family is not socialism in the context of politics.

If you're going to benefit, shouldn't you have to pay? Much of what you consider "state-coerced" socialism are situations where it's not possible for you to opt out of the benefits; you'll benefit regardless. In those situations basic fairness demands that you not be allowed to opt out of the payments, either.

Crash, I am not necessarily opposed to all government programs that help people, but at the same time, they can sometimes cause a ton of hurt for people as well and yet continue to enjoy support due to misguided backing.Take for example, social security. Right now, imo, social security is a horribly repressive and regressive tax system on the lowest wage earners. Along with medicare, it's essentially a 15% tax on people's earning power for the first 80K or so people earn.Now, take a low wage earner that would make, say, 20K per year in terms of cost to his employer. He is losing $3000 per year because some liberal democrats want to "help him." If you ask me, the liberals are royally screwing this guy over, but get away with it by claiming they are for the guy. It's a rip-off. If you want to help retirees, get the funding somewhere else besides the poorest wage earners in our soceity.