[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Every time i come and post in this forum i get bashed.

I'm a liberal so I wanted to know what percentage of Conservative / Liberals in this forum

[TETENAL]

You are aware that there are a significant amount of non-Americans on this forum?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You are aware that there are a significant amount of non-Americans on this forum?

There are three types of people at MacNN: non-Americans, un-Americans, and conservatives.

[stevesnj]

why no choice for 'common sense' ?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by BRussell

un-Americans, and conservatives.

So you don't think that democracy is a good thing?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

why no choice for 'common sense' ?

forgot about that one

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You are aware that there are a significant amount of non-Americans on this forum?

yes

So the question to them is what party do you side on.

[EFFENDI]

I'm a Moderate with a left-leaning moral perspective. Idealogically, Libertarian.

[Chuckit]

I don't consider myself either. I'm a registered Republican, ideologically libertarian, and I think that both liberalism and conservatism have been perverted to the point where I can't agree with either of their popular incarnations.

[davesimondotcom]

"Classic liberal." "Little L libertarian." "Free thinker."

I really can't be pigeon-holed by those two terms. On some issues, I'm very liberal. On others, conservative.

I'm your average pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-gun rights, pro-gay rights, non-religious, nature-lovin', free-market lovin' guy.

So, in short, "None of the above." Or maybe "Liberative" or "Conserveral."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by badidea

So you don't think that democracy is a good thing?

Huh?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

"Classic liberal." "Little L libertarian." "Free thinker."

I really can't be pigeon-holed by those two terms. On some issues, I'm very liberal. On others, conservative.

I'm your average pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-gun rights, pro-gay rights, non-religious, nature-lovin', free-market lovin' guy.

Being pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't eliminate you from being conservative. Most conservatives I know are pro-choice, but with restrictions (like get the procedure in the first trimester, parental notification when a 12-year-old walks into a clinic, etc.). Same with gay rights. It's the insistance by folks to redefine marriage that irks people. Call the union between gays something else, and all is fine w/ many conservatives.

Jimmy Carter is a religious Christian. Yet I wouldn't dare classify him as "on some issues... liberal. On others...conservative." He's about as core a liberal as one can get.

[voodoo]

Conservative Catholic.

V

[besson3c]

SpaceMonkey voted for both Conservative and Liberal

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

SpaceMonkey voted for both Conservative and Liberal

Yup. I'm very complex.

[invisibleX]

None of the above. I have no interest in playing the liberal vs conservative game.

[Doofy]

Doofy-centric Minarchist.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by badidea

So you don't think that democracy is a good thing?

Where did you get that? I'm on the opposite side as he is on most issues and I still know he loves democracy.

[greenG4]

I don't think most people are acurately represented by either term.

[Spliffdaddy]

I went ahead and voted 'liberal' on behalf of invisibleX - who is the definition of a liberal.



This same poll was done a few months ago and the results were about 70% liberal.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I went ahead and voted 'liberal' on behalf of invisibleX - who is the definition of a liberal.



This same poll was done a few months ago and the results were about 70% liberal.

See what I mean? Everyone wants to put a political label on you to make themselves feel secure.

I feel no such need to label people. Being part of or affiliated with with a certain party does not make you right it just makes you stubborn.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nobody personifies *all* the ideals of either liberalism nor conservatism. But, if one had to choose the ideology which more closely mirrors their own....

I consider myself a conservative - yet, on many issues, I'm considered a liberal.

There's a certain negative stigma attached to the term 'liberal' - for whatever reason - so I can understand why folks would avoid admitting it.

When these same 'liberal or conservative' polls are done nationwide, very few people will say they're liberal - while a lot of folks readily admit to being conservative.

[Kevin]

Liberal
C.A.T.S. CEO, EFFENDI, Face Ache, invisibleX, ironknee, Mithras, SpaceMonkey, spauldingg, Spliffdaddy

[loki74]

moderate conservative.

note that is different from Republican... like most of us, I feel I have my own brand of conservatism. (the "common sense" option would have been nice...)

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Liberal
C.A.T.S. CEO, EFFENDI, Face Ache, invisibleX, ironknee, Mithras, SpaceMonkey, spauldingg, Spliffdaddy

I explained my reasoning...
I very much agree with ChuckIt's reasoning as well.

My opinion is that I don't "clasically" fit into either definition, but given only two choices, I am more Liberal than Conservative.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Where did you get that? I'm on the opposite side as he is on most issues and I still know he loves democracy.

Isn't it obvious? Calling non-conservatives un-american is not very democratic!
(or was this a joke from BRussell that I didn't get??)

edit: I just clicked "view poll results" and both sides have 11 votes or 55%!?!?!?!

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Being pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't eliminate you from being conservative. Most conservatives I know are pro-choice, but with restrictions (like get the procedure in the first trimester, parental notification when a 12-year-old walks into a clinic, etc.). Same with gay rights. It's the insistance by folks to redefine marriage that irks people. Call the union between gays something else, and all is fine w/ many conservatives.

Wow, you sound like you're trying to convince a member not to leave the club...

[Sky Captain]

How about a politically conservative, ecological conservationist, scientific liberal?

[Helmling]

Why don't we all get past the nonsense of partisanship and drop these labels--they no longer define any coherent political philosophy, just which club you swear allegiance to in a very bitter little ideological squabble.

[mac128k-1984]

I don't think this poll is sufficient choices.

I'm neither a conservative or liberal. I view myself like many americans in that they are not driven by one political philosphy. I have conservative tendancies on some issues and what would be considered liberal tendancies on others.

[Kr0nos]

Anarchist, but I side with 'liberals' on almost all social and ecological issues. I also agree with a lot of capital 'L' Libertarianism, it's got some serious flaws though.

[Dakar]

I just noticed Mojo listed himself as liberal. Heh.

[Kr0nos]

Heh. It registered me as 'conservative' eventhough I clicked 'liberal'.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Wow, you sound like you're trying to convince a member not to leave the club...

Or explaining how Schwarzenegger and Giuliani fit as conservatives...

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Or explaining how Schwarzenegger and Giuliani fit as conservatives...

I don't believe he mentioned either of them...

I thought Schwartnegger was a California Conservative.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Anarchist, but I side with 'liberals' on almost all social and ecological issues.

That doesn't make any sense unless we know what kind of anarchist you are.

You say you side with the libs on almost all social issues. Does that include socialised health care?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

How about a politically conservative, ecological conservationist, scientific liberal?

I hope that if you claim to be an "ecological conservationist, scientific liberal," whatever that is, you won't deny that global warming is being caused by human activities.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That doesn't make any sense unless we know what kind of anarchist you are.

You say you side with the libs on almost all social issues. Does that include socialised health care?

No, socialized medicine doesn't fall into that category.

And yes, you can be an anarchist (by the true defenition of what anarchy means) and still believe in socialized medicine.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

And yes, you can be an anarchist (by the true defenition of what anarchy means) and still believe in socialized medicine.

No, you can't. There'd be no mechanism for administering it - and if there were, you'd have crossed from anarchism into communism.

You still haven't told us what type of anarchist you are. Don't you know?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, you can't. There'd be no mechanism for administering it - and if there were, you'd have crossed from anarchism into communism.

LOL. No, absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Doofy

You still haven't told us what type of anarchist you are.

I go by this definition here…

[Doofy]

So you're a commie anarchist then.

(Quotes from your link)

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.

1) Assumes we're all equal. We're not.
2) Assumes that I'm going to freely co-operate. I'm not.

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]

So, your system doesn't work without everyone freely co-operating. Screw that. I don't want to co-operate. Who's going to make me if you don't have a government or the associated state instruments?

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:

Yep. Communism.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you're a commie anarchist then.

Whatever you want to label it. Doesn't make any difference to me.

Originally Posted by Doofy

1) Assumes we're all equal. We're not.

That's not the point they're making here. The emphasis is on 'being treated as'…

Originally Posted by Doofy

2) Assumes that I'm going to freely co-operate. I'm not.

Your problem.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Who's going to make me if you don't have a government or the associated state instruments?

If you and a bunch of other asshats are the only ones who do, it won't make any difference.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. Communism.

Nope, not communism. Anarchism. There is a very subtle but important difference.

"The important, fundamental dissension [between anarchists and Marxists] is [that] . . . [Marxist] socialists are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians.

"Socialists want power . . . and once in power wish to impose their programme on the people. . . Anarchists instead maintain, that government cannot be other than harmful, and by its very nature it defends either an existing privileged class or creates a new one; and instead of inspiring to take the place of the existing government anarchists seek to destroy every organism which empowers some to impose their own ideas and interests on others, for they want to free the way for development towards better forms of human fellowship which will emerge from experience, by everyone being free and, having, of course, the economic means to make freedom possible as well as a reality."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, you can't. There'd be no mechanism for administering it - and if there were, you'd have crossed from anarchism into communism.

You still haven't told us what type of anarchist you are. Don't you know?

Personally, I'm a fashion anarchist.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Personally, I'm a fashion anarchist.

I'm a fashion opportunist. I put on whatever is handy that looks comfortable and doesn't smell bad.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

How about a politically conservative, ecological conservationist, scientific liberal?

Sounds awfully familiar...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm a fashion opportunist. I put on whatever is handy that looks comfortable and doesn't smell bad.

Well at least I agree with two out of three of those.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Whatever you want to label it. Doesn't make any difference to me.

I'm just trying to get to grips with which flavour of anarchist you reckon you are.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That's not the point they're making here. The emphasis is on 'being treated as'…

I think you'll find it's not.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Your problem.

No. It'd be your problem. Your system expects everyone to play along. Experience says that everyone won't play your game and that you'll need to slap down those who dissent. If you don't slap them down, you have capitalist libertarianism. If you do slap them down, you have communism.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Nope, not communism. Anarchism. There is a very subtle but important difference.

Yeah. One is actually possible in the real world. The other isn't.

[Rumor]

Political views are as easily determined or blatanly obvious as whether the cup is half empty or half full.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I think you'll find it's not.

I know it is.

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. It'd be your problem. Your system expects everyone to play along.

It's not 'expect', it's actually 'require' (albeit, without force).

And no, it wouldn't have to be 'everyone', just enough - that's something you simply don't understand.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Experience says that everyone won't play your game and that you'll need to slap down those who dissent.

That's where your theory falls flat on it's ass. There is no 'experience' from which you could extrapolate what might happen.

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you don't slap them down, you have capitalist libertarianism. If you do slap them down, you have communism.

Bullsh1t. You are simply inferring that most people wouldn't cooperate, but have no way of proving it.

It's all about what you as an individual do and how you treat others, not about what the govt. would need to do in order to make the system 'work'.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yeah. One is actually possible in the real world. The other isn't.

Yeah, that's what you'd like to believe. Truth be told though –

a) You've got no way of proving it (you being the proverbial 'spoilsport' is completely meaningless).

b) People are generally just as cooperative as they are egotistical.

Furthermore, the question in the thread was what everybody's political leanings were.

[Chuckit]

Anarchy is a naive hope. Where there is no power, somebody will rise to power, and then you'll have tyranny. Why do you think Anarchist Hippy Love Land doesn't exist anywhere on Earth? Because it is not a sustainable condition for human beings.