.
Libertarian.
Libertarian or independent, or a combo such as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. For example, someone might be pro-choice and favor marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage but also oppose raising taxes and too much federal power over the states.
Hello Rosie:
I'm in the Rent Is TOO Damn High party.
excon
But rent is a landlord-tenant matter determined by local economic/market conditions (supply and demand), not an issue of government policy. That's why Mr. McMillan and his party never get anywhere.
Hello again, Stu:
Yeah, but we have better food at our rallies.
excon
I don't know what I am but I am not a Republican or a Democrat. They are too similar. The only difference is Democrats cannot be made fun of as much because the Republicans are so over the top that no one even notices the Democratic shenanigans.
I support the left but I'm leaning to the right in real life. Sometimes vice-versa. The Democrats seem to want me to keep my money more than the Tea Party.
I consider myself a "Moderate", probably leaning more left than right. But I really do not have any passion for either party since I think there is so much corruption in both.
I'm an individualist. Neither conservatism or what passes for liberalism these days adequately represent this philosophy. This is a false dichotomy.
I know m2c. But honestly can't they all be boiled down to a few? They have different names to be sure. But Conservatives prefer self-reliance, law and order, earning your own keep. Liberals prefer to help those in need, give to those who can't do it for themselves. Do you disagree with that? Conservatives prefer small government. Liberals want a lot of programs that will help folks with health, education, whatever is needed. There is a definite difference between them and don't all those other par
ties fall somewhere close to one or the other? Thank you for your answer! :) \
Of course I disagree with thee completely, totally, absolutely and unequivocally. Thank you for your reply FNR.
There are many cases in which a thing is true regardless of whether or not we agree with it. This is one of those cases.
In this particular case, the two political ideologies you reference above represent only two possible sides of a sliding scale on the broader political spectrum.
Might I suggest some reading? Not necessarily an authoritative source on the matter, but should you seek out an authoritative source of your choice, and I suggest you do, you'll find this succinctly and correctly condenses the facts of the matter.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Independent
There's also establishment vs anti-establishment. It's more important to some people (me) than liberal vs conservative. To me liberal vs conservative is the establishment way of thinking.
Liberal vs conservative is a false choice because lots of people (me) (most people I know) have some liberal ideas and some conservative ideas. Establishment vs anti-establishment is something I can easily understand.
I listen to radio all day at work and sometimes I listen to political talk (yuck) but usually for not very long. Anyway, here are two statements I've heard from people on those stations:
"They (other countries) have single payer health care but they have more restrictions on abortion. That just doesn't make any sense."
"He (a politician) is pro choice but he doesn't support gun control. It doesn't make sense."
OK, why doesn't that not make sense? It only doesn't make sense to liberals and conservatives and I can't see why it doesn't make sense. What do abortion, gun control and single payer health care have to do with each other? I didn't get it in high school civics class and I still don't get it.
Why must someone who is pro life also be opposed to single payer health care and opposed to gun control? Why must someone who is pro choice also support gun control and support single payer health care?
I truly don't understand liberals and conservatives. It also doesn't help that they both use english words but speak an entirely different language.
Ah, yes, the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" mish-mash, or, as I like to (mostly jokingly) call them, The Selfish Bastard Party.
I've met several such people in my travels, and what I've found when I've pressed them on specifics is they LIKE our modern socialized mixed economy with a relatively activist government. They LIKE having paved roads, and schools for all children, and not having to personally test every food item they buy for botulism, and that air traffic controllers keep the planes they fly on from crashing into each other, and so forth. They LIKE all of that STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL stuff....until their tax bills comes due. Then clearly the government is too big and too fiscally irresponsible and, "Dag nab it. We gotta do something. Throw the bums out!"
Well, getting something for nothing is a wonderful idea. It's great if you can pull it off. But it's not how the real world generally works. When I have confronted Selfish Bastards with this fundamental principle, they typically respond with Moving The Goal Posts (e.g. "The politicians/the system are corrupt" - Probably true, but it's a separate question), hand-waving (e.g. "Let's keep the Good Stuff and get rid of the Bad Stuff" -- OK, but what is the Good/Bad Stuff?), and/or wishful thinking (e.g. "Program X is clearly a boondoggle, let's get rid of it!" -- OK, but Program X is 0.001% of the public budget. Can you find one thousand Program Xs to cut? (hint: no))
@Stu B -- You are correct, but you need to include government policies in what you call "local economic/market conditions"
Governments make decisions in multiple domains (zoning, infrastructure investment, setting land aside for public purposes, economic incentives, subsidization of rents and/or mortgage loans, etc.) which influence whether or not The Rent Is Too Damn High. I don't see, in principle, why renters shouldn't have some say in those decisions.
I will once again post the George Lakoff video where he gets to the heart of the matter.
"Liberal" and "Conservative" are contextual definitions. For example, for most of US history, it was considered a "conservative" position to be AGAINST a large standing military and using said military for overseas geopolitical maneuvering. With the advent of the Cold War, being IN FAVOR of a large strong aggressively-deployed military became the "conservative" position while arguing for limiting the military to legitimate existential defense was demonized as the STOOPID EBIL COMMIE LIBRUHL position. Similarly, in most rich industrialized democracies, universal health care is a given and not even "conservative" politicians seriously advocate eliminating it (e.g. one of the selling points of Brexit was allegedly more money for Britain's National Health Service). Here in America, the weak facsimile of universal health care we call Obamacare is demonized as TEH EBIL SOCIALISM. Without defining our terms, "liberal" and "conservative" don't say much.
There are more fundamental mental constructs which make our beliefs about the proper role of government. Lakoff believes that our understanding of Family (the first "governing institution" in our lives) is what underlies our political beliefs. Our family concepts tend to fall into two categories: Strict Father and Nurturing Parent. We understand and hold both of those concepts in our minds, and we use a MIXTURE of them to determine our political stances.
They do have a say - they can choose to rent at the going rates or move elsewhere, where they may find it more affordable. They have as much say as landlords, who can choose to rent their units out at the going rates or sell their properties. It's called voting with your feet. Government decisions are made by elected officials and bureaucrats.
I think everybody more or less has the same traits, I would need a definition of what a liberal stands for specifically and what a conservative stands for. I consider myself someone who respects and loves life, liberty, and privacy without others controlling that, that's all, freedom under the constitution of America. I think most all people would like the same thing, so does that make me Conservative or liberal. I like to think just human.
@Stu B -- If a local government decides to give Acme Corp. a $1 billion package of incentives/tax credits to build a factory in their town, and that factory attracts a bunch of high-paid workers who drive residential rents through the roof, such that the manager of the Circkle-K convenience store can no longer live a reasonable distance from his store, that's not a "free market" decision.
To call the renter's Hobson's choice (leave town or go broke) a "free market" decision while calling the relocation of Acme a STOOPID EBIL GUBMINT POINTY-HEADED BUREAUCRAT decision is simply disingenous. They are connected and they BOTH resulted from a political process.
It doesn't even necessarily require a STOOPID EBIL GUBMINT POINTY-HEADED BUREAUCRAT decision to create such problems. The success of Google, Oracle, Uber, etc. has made the City of San Francisco essentially a hyper-expensive bedroom community for Silicon Valley.
One the one hand, good for them. That's Capitalism, baby! On the other hand, San Francisco is only 49 square miles. It cannot expand. It cannot annex outlying land (which is already incorporated into other cities). And yet San Francisco cannot survive if the only people who can afford to live there are software engineers, microprocessor designers, and chief marketing officers. San Francisco needs police, firefighters, teachers, fast food workers, dental assistants. etc., etc., etc. Those people need to live somewhere. As it stands, San Francisco can either try to massively increase its housing base (which would require huge increases in housing density its infrastructure may not support) or have low-paid workers live out of town (in which case SOMEONE has to pay for the transportation infrastructure to bring them into town).
Once again, I don't see why renters don't have just as valid a claim to the political process which shapes such decisions as anyone else.
@BSD -- Re: I think everybody more or less has the same traits.
I'm sorry, but you are simply empirically wrong on many levels. Note, I am not saying your particular set of POLITICAL beliefs are wrong. I am saying that your belief in the universality of human desires/wishes/definitions of moral concepts is utterly contrary to decades of research in multiple domains.
Your definitions of "life", "liberty" and "privacy" are yours. Some people share them, many people don't. Failing to acknowledge those differences will simply mislead you.
