[trombonepolitician]

In the last few months, I have become more specific in my ideology. Before that I had always thought of myself as a "centrist" and a moderate conservative fiscally. Then I discovered Modern Monetary theory, post-keynesian economics, problems facing the current US, etc.

I could be any one of these labels:
Left-libertarian
Civic Republican
Social Democrat
Libertarian Socialist(?)
Communitarian
Social Liberal
Progressive Conservative

The political compass put me in the "libertarian left" quadrant, but I've been quite unsure of whether or not I could call myself a "libertarian" of any sort. Libertarian intellectuals often are deeply rooted in theoretical fabrics of their ideal society (that isn't to say that they aren't pleasant people or aren't fun to talk to) whether it be anarcho-cap, participism, mutualism, etc. The other part I'm unsure about is exactly how "left wing" I actually am. The Nolan Chart puts me in the moderate or libertarian-leaning progressive area.

Philosophical intentions:
I believe the individual is born with specific traits, but the individual only really develops their personality and methodology according to his surroundings. It is important to stay active with groups of people as well as do thinking on your own. Institutions such as government welfare and unions have developed to protect the shortfalls of capitalism and, perhaps, the market itself. That being said, government regulation has often come about through corporate lobbying as well (in 2006 Wal Mart lobbied for the increase in the minimum wage). Strict regulations on zoning and, perhaps to a lesser extent, land speculation sometimes limit institutions (especially unique and alternative ones) from really growing and prospering. Individuals and groups in society should have the maximum opportunities to pursue what they see as most fitting for their lives.

Outcomes:

-A means-tested welfare system that everyone pays into
- People should be allowed to divert part of government retirement savings into private savings accounts if they wish, no tax credit though
- I prefer charity and mutual aid to government benefits though

- Public universal healthcare with private/alternative options
- I remember reading a Kevin Carson article on this, where "universal" health care used to be provided by fraternal societies that pooled their money and contracted with a local doctor

- A guaranteed basic minimum income for all citizens

- Loosening of zoning regulations and possible phase in of a land value tax in certain localities (I'm not dogmatic about Georgism like some are, i do think it is a great tax system though)

- Pro-minimum wage, pro-overtime work regulations, unsure about current increase in minimum wage debate

- Current state of capitalism is unsustainable, start cutting corporate welfare, individuals and groups should practice civil disobedience when they want and when convenient by selling things out of their own homes, using alternative trading methods, etc.

- Simplified Progressive income tax, lower corporate/business tax, unsure about financial transaction tax

- Worker co-ops might be beneficial in the long run, but that may not fit the interests of every individual or group, but I often like looking at development proposals on community-wealth.org

- Government stimulus during recessions to repair infrastructure and increase minimum incomes (personal debt relief is especially important right now)

[emmitt]

There's a paper out there which is called "neo-republicanism and the civic economy". I'm pretty sure you'd like most of the stuff the author proposes:

1) Workplace republicanism: People should be encouraged to go into business for themselves or/and to form cooperative enterprises.

2) Citizens will be protected against "the ravages of market competition" by increasing economic diversity within a community.

3) The ideal of non-domination will be achieved by implementing an inheritance tax.

4) A progressive consumption tax

5) There'll be some kind of "civic" minimum of support. There are two possibilities:
a) A basic income
b) A basic-capital grant


----

Don't call yourself a left-libertarian. The word "libertarian has been used for so many different concepts. It won't do justice to your ideas if you use it.

Don't call yourself a social democrat. The idea of social democracy is too general to be helpful in your case.

Don't call yourself a social liberal. Liberalism is even worse than libertarianism. The word's absolutely useless unless you actually agree with regular liberals in the US.

[trombonepolitician]

Emitt, I'll reply to you on the other page. Thanks! I'll let others take a crack at my label as well

[slybaldguy]

How does the label 'militant moderate' grab you? Call yourself that and people will be intruiged as to what you stand for. Resist all attempts from Democrats and Republicans to assimilate you into their movements. Now, go forth and prosper young man!

[trombonepolitician]

I've called myself a moderate and centrist before. The label just seems spineless. I think I've settled on "pragmatic progressive" or "progressive conservative." The latter seems equally a throwoff to partisans in both parties.

My conservatism comes from my rational outlook. I don't have an ideal society in model in respect to Mutualism, Syndicalism, Anarcho-capitalism, etc. I do have an ideal of the opposition to the current form of corporate capitalism, though. I think it has driven up the cost of living and has made people work harder to make more money just to support themselves and families. And I don't think it is fair that certain people get tax benefits (that includes the many deductions for rich, middle class, poor, and the several companies that thrive off of them as indirect subsidies). I think it would be great if more individuals would still celebrate their singular unique traits, but would unite under common causes, even if they are not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

[Social_Critic]

I like being spineless. It's a slippery condition which allows me to twist and turn on a dime. Give me new information and I'll probably change my mind. Torture me and I'll confess whatever you dream of. And I just don't see why anybody with a fairly vertical forehead is sure about much when this whole universe is unreal. For all I know I'm a figment of your imagination. Politics? It's sheer bullshit. Don't believe anything they say. If you do, you'll be a slave.

[trombonepolitician]

That is a good attitude to have. But I still think people need to develop their own predispositions even if they are not highly held. I guess I meant one is spineless if they think all compromises in the legislative process are inherently "good."

[SpaciousBox]

Hey there trombonepolitician, I'll take a crack at this.

Firstly, as was correctly pointed out by emmitt the definitions of many ideologies are very vague and often subjective. This is made even worse by the fact that most posters on this site subscribe to definitions based on their own political ideology and not the lines of modern political theory. I was taught in school the differences between right and left liberalism, the differences between Marxists, Social Democrats, and Fascists, etc. Yet you will tend to find that the further away from centre a poster is, the more likely they are to group into far finer categories of "us" and "them", or in the case of specific ideologies grouping different theories under banners of similarity (On this forum: A lot of posters consider all centrists to be Liberals - I assume due to their relative liberalism in relation to the extremes. You will also notice how many of the Capitalistic Right will consider anything beyond centre as Socialist, regardless to if they support for the actual collective ownership of the means of production). Due to this, I would probably advise calling yourself whatever you feel speaks for your views the most - but always keep in mind that not everyone is talking about that ideology in respect to what you might be. I find it better to express views, values, and interests, and bring ideological labels into discussion only when referring to specific debates on ideology.

I believe the individual is born with specific traits, but the individual only really develops their personality and methodology according to his surroundings ..... Institutions such as government welfare and unions have developed to protect the shortfalls of capitalism and, perhaps, the market itself ..... Strict regulations on zoning and, perhaps to a lesser extent, land speculation sometimes limit institutions (especially unique and alternative ones) from really growing and prospering. Individuals and groups in society should have the maximum opportunities to pursue what they see as most fitting for their lives.

Very classical perspectivism, and very classic Social Liberal. I would agree with you on all these points, but so would Social Democrats and a lot of people on the centre / centre-left. The real question of how far economically left you are probably depends on your beliefs when it comes to the relation of people and capital. If you are a strong believer that Capitalism can work under a regulated frame-work, then you are probably more to the centre. If you don't consider this true, then maybe you are moving into the realms of Market Socialism, and feel the government should take a stronger role in controlling the market (though still in favour of it's competitive bonuses).

- Welfare + minimum wage
- State pension + health care
- "I prefer charity and mutual aid to government benefits though"
- Co-ops, unsustainable Capitalism

An interesting blend of fairly standard centre policy these days and some left logic. As mentioned above though, how far down the line probably depends on how much you believe Capitalism may need organisation from the top - eg: forced co-ops, tax-cuts for approved business models, workers rights, etc. - Or how far you wish to simply leave these things to the market, with more of a safety net and boundaries than direct action. I am presently going for that exact discussion myself actually. I used to be a fairly market orientated liberal, though the present economic crisis has sent me further to the left than I have ever been before. Living in a working class area during that phase also helped me a lot with my economic thought, so I imagine you and me may have some fairly interesting discussions on the limits of capitalism and a more open market.

As for your ideology, I can't really say I'm seeing any Left-Libertarian there. Social Liberal - sure, Social Democrat - absolutely. Maybe even a Democratic Socialist or Market Socialist if you end up dropping Capitalism in favour of co-ops, but I would much rather leave that one to one of the forums left. I see absolutely no signs of Republicanism or Progressive Conservative (whatever that is...). Naturally though just my opinions, and not a blind statement of fact by any stretch. What are your thoughts on human rights, foreign policy, and civil liberty?

[trombonepolitician]

Civil liberties- generally should not be infringed upon. Private institutions should not be wiretapped without a warrant. Public institutions are negotiable for me. I am afraid that all of these tragedies have given government an outward excuse to infringe on our civil liberties. I support same-sex marriage. Although I don't think the government should legislate a marriage definition, it may be necessary and inevitable. Like the civil rights act, legislation would prompt discrimination of homosexuality in the workplace to be illegal by default (at least as far as hiring goes) and then I think humanity/citizenry will take up the reins from there. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion- people should be educated about safe sex, abstinence, and birth control. There should be no federal funding for abortions, keep the government out of that decision.

Human rights- I really think the libertarian position of non-intervention does well here, even if it can be considered somewhat naive. I don't hold a favorable view toward the US being the world police. I'm still figuring out my position on this, but I feel like the US should only help other countries with militaristic matters if asked.

My primary goal in welfare is helping people to help themselves. This means job training can be a public as well as private and non-profit matter, public education and health care should be subsidized, and there should be a universal stipend for all individuals and families based on income already acquired. I however favor a simplified, flatter income tax system, perhaps even a replacement of that with a land value tax (as proposed in classical economics). As far as credits and deductions, I think there is a need for incentives such as charity. I'm still figuring that out as well.

I agree that humans are not exempt from our ecosystem, but there needs to be leadership to remind people and institutions of that by taxing carbon and creating situations to reduce emissions. At very least to protect the public health of citizens.