What is your political ideology?

I believe that you should give people what THEY want. No matter what that is.

Some people want more freedom, some people want more support by goverment... You can´t have 2 different thing at same time.

Some people want want high taxes to have free health and better life like in Finland, some people want lower taxes and unfree health care like in USA.

So, really. If you were head of goverment then it would be automaticly fail becuase YOU CANT GIVE WHAT PEOPLE WANT.

This does not work like that.

You made this thread way too complicated. I will just generalize myself and say "conservative on fiscal issues, liberal on social issues" with some caveats. Overall I'm a practical man.

A good mix

I think democratic socialism will inevitably take hold in every first world country.

Nothing.

Politics do not concern me

Generally, left-wing. But it depends.

@FreedomFreeLife: majority of people are important. If the majority wants to ruin lives it's its choice. If the minority thinks the majority is dumb then they can start a new life in a new country.

Why post then? I mean seriously why?

@FreedomFreeLife: majority of people are important. If the majority wants to ruin lives it's its choice. If the minority thinks the majority is dumb then they can start a new life in a new country.

I don't have one. No group that has organized itself under a single banner has matched how I believe a country should be run.

I believe in social liberalism (+abortion, +gay marriage, +everything a neo-con might find offensive) and staunch fiscal responsibility (i.e. spending within the means of production and cut down on borrowing as much as possible), however, I am not a libertarian per se, as I do support the existence of a government and it's maintenance of the country/state (and services it provides).

I believe there should be a safety net for the poor and those unable to help themselves make a living, however, I do not believe people are entitled to make anything beyond a livable wage unless they work for it and develop the skills necessary to achieve it (i.e. the safety net should only be available to those incapable of working).

I believe there should be a universal health care service that provides all the basic requirements for living a healthy life (this includes dentistry and psychological services) but do feel that there should be auxiliary service accessible to those able to pay for decreased waiting times in private clinics (which in turn can free up space in the public system).

I believe that religion should not play a single role in the maintenance or operation of a country/state and that personal beliefs should not be a functional part of a politicians platform. They should be able to sell themselves based on their ability to run their office, not their ability to appeal to a majority opinion about the existence/non-existence of a deity.

If you can find me a label that fits social liberalism, fiscal conservatism and supports the existence of a government, then I will gladly adopt it.

NO!

You said they should give what people want but you can´t give what everyone want. In my country there are 10 political party in parliament. 6 party in goverment(Liberal conservatism,Social democracy,Democratic socialism, Green liberalism, Liberalism, Social conservatism) and in Opposition (National populism, Centrism, Eco-socialism, Direct democracy)

Red are party ideology(1 ideology per party). In index it´s most corruption free country, one of the richest countries in world and best education.

Yes, majority of people is important but i never will support 1-2 party system like in USA or UK

Some mix of democratic socialist and social democrat if I were to generalize myself.

I prefer to critically zoom in on specific issues and areas and think about them rather than an overall picture. My beliefs just happen to coincide with left-wing labels.

omg. Finland is not in Scandinavia. Sweden and Norway have conservative-liberal governments. The people are not very nice at all.

Hmm out of that list? I'd say democratic socialism. I'm not sure I can express my political ideology so restrictedly in a few words. Its due to the fact that I think its not yet mature enough to begin with.

Economics wise, I'm definitely more of a socialist. Socially I consider myself a moderate liberal.

@FreedomFreeLife: That's dictatorship don't you think? It's like when they say "We're doing this for your own good" but guess what I don't want a few people deciding how I should live like they know. It's about giving people all the power to decide for themselves. You can only guide them to a better society not force them into it.

nationalist

I don't think you'd be considered fiscally conservative...

You believe in a free universal healthcare system and a safety net for the poor. Now, you tweaked your definition of that safety net so you might not be too far to the left but you're still there, at least in my own understanding of the terminology of fiscal conservatism/liberalism.

I remember in high school, a teacher told me that if he could draw out a picture of my political views, he said it would be two gay men lying in bed, smoking marijuana whilst holding AK-47s. >.>

I believe I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative with some exceptions.

@plageus900: Your teacher was a real jerk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

"Fiscal conservatives advocate and often consider avoiding deficit spending and the reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance."

One need not eliminate social programs to achieve responsible spending.

I chose "Liberalism", because you seem to be defining it in the classical sense. However, I'd call myself a libertarian.

Liberal, socially and fiscally. Countries like France and Sweden have the right ideas and are immensely prosperous for it.

Well, fiscal conservatives in the current state of human affairs cannot really say it out loud that they want to abolish social programs altogether. They have to sugarcoat it if they want to stay relevant and be taken seriously. Regardless, that definition is vague and open for a number of interpretations. "Reduction of overall government spending" would resonate with cutting down on public services and social programs instead of reducing military budget for example.

No government beyond courts, police, and military.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke post.

Whatever works. Out of what you listed the closest would be social democracy. You end up with people being able to live good lives without being overly oppressed by either government, corporations or any large group. If people aren't dying of simple illnesses due to being unable to get any treatment and not starving to death in the street society runs a lot smoother. Education is the single most important thing though. If most people are uneducated historically they'll just end up following some charismatic lunatic once things get bad enough for them. Smart people also work together a hell of a lot better than stupid people do. If keeping society half way decent costs some money then so be it. It would blow to have it all fall apart after all this time.

lol at conservativism being fair.

Depends on what you think fair is I suppose. As an example lets say in a game one particular weapon is ludicrously overpowered. There's two theories on what is fair in this situation. One is that "Anyone could unlock this and use it. If its so good then why aren't you using it too?". The alternative is "This weapon is clearly unbalanced. The developers should nerf it". Take a guess which corresponds to which ideology. For bonus points add in that said weapon is the last thing unlocked.

I would say though that without weaseling around Conservativism is absolutely not about fairness. Social Darwinism mixed with Tradition (which oddly enough in the US is largely Christian which is opposed to social darwinist beliefs pretty heavily) is what I'd say makes up the majority of modern conservatism.

I wish my social sciences teacher would ask questions in this manner lol, i'd ace all the tests lol

nothing in these poll options

Responsible spending doesn't mean cutting of services, it means cutting the fat at a bureaucratic level. Fiscal conservatism is not synonymous with wanting to end social programs, so don't make it seem like it is.

none of those communism social democracy is reactionary do nothings.

I'm on the left side of the spectrum.

@Makhaidos: Those aren't all that left-wing though, especially France. Better examples would have been Canada and Norway.

I'd like you to answer this question for me: If this what fiscal conservatism stands for, then what is it that fiscal liberalism stands for?

The fiscal conservatives' policies on the ground and in the real world speak a lot about what fiscal conservatism is really about. Their views on taxes, healthcare, wages, education and public services suggest that if they could have it their way they wouldn't mind doing away with social services or the great majority of them.

I find it particularly peculiar when someone holds or adheres to a certain belief willingly yet he finds the need to sugarcoat or "dodge" it as if he was ashamed of it. I'm not saying you're doing that in this topic, but I'm just making a point about beliefs and doctrines of any nature.

sweden has the happiest, longest living, healthiest, best educated people in the world.

We should honestly copy what they're doing if we want that.

That's always confused me a bit, christian conservatives who are ordered to care about the poor often seem to care about them less than everybody and would throw them under the bus if able.

I see it on here quite a bit actually.

I think some people just put their politics on a higher pedestal than their religion despite talking down to people with different beliefs.

My views are pretty complicated and people here have called me "right wing" sometimes and "liberal idiot" at other times. They don't really fit in with any one ideology, but here they are:

1. Taxes: Everyone should pay same percentage of their income, regardless of how high or low it is.

2. Equality: People should not be discriminated against due to gender, age, race, religion, or orientation. this includes jobs, school admission, marriage, etc. But I also oppose affirmative action or any other sort of preferential treatment based on those same qualities.

3. Immigration: People should only be allowed to come here legally. Illegal immigrants should not receive welfare or any taxpayer-funded benefits.

4. Criminal justice: People should be punished equally for the same crime. Your gender, wealth, race, etc should not matter.

5. Guns: Any law-abiding citizenship should be allow to purchase guns. Convicted felons should not be allowed to purchase guns.

Deficit spending to fund things the country/state cannot pay for(i.e extensive social programs, excessive military spending, etc). I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time grasping this.

• A fiscal liberal strives to provide the most for the country no matter the cost.
• A fiscal conservative strives to spend what money their is in the country the most efficiently.

I thought it would be fairly straightforward.

And you aren't talking about "fiscal conservatives", you are talking about "political conservatives". The former don't necessarily have a completely conservative platform across the board, while the latter do. It's why I specified that I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I stand to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones.

I was referring more to the "responsible spending" portion of your statement as if either sides of the fiscal isle would promote "irresponsible spending". Beside that, your definitions are still open to different interpretations. For example, "no matter the cost" could translate to raising taxes on the rich and a system of distributive justice that accommodates for the less privileged classes of society, while "most efficiently" could translate to cutting down on social services with the excuse of not having enough money to fund it. In any case, if one would compare the quality of life of the more fiscally conservative US and the more fiscally liberal states like Canada, Norway, Sweden...etc, I'm bound to believe that in the real world fiscal conservatism caters for the interest of the rich and disregards lower classes of society to a certain extent, while fiscal liberalism would yield a better quality of life for the population at large.

And a crime rate so low that they've been closing prisons due to non-use. It baffles me why conservatives point to them and think it's a hell on Earth.

Yet they parade the south, the most conservative place in the U.S. as a great place to live when it has the lowest education rates, highest poverty rates, lowest wages and most bigotry.

you would think conservatives would put 2 and 2 together and thing "maybe our way isn't working"

I think the best argument against fiscal conservatism is the comparison between the quality of life in fiscally conservative-liberal countries, at least when done among economically healthy nations.

None of the poll options. No police or military, only consensus based social contract. I believe in moving on beyond models in general and letting each community decide whats best for them. So we can have reasonable systems with the human beings involved at the absolute center. I believe discision making power should not be held in the hands of few. Minority rule does not protect the individual. I beleive that if a minority believes that a discision disproportionately effects them they should have the ability to reject it after providing evidence. I also beleve there should be spaces for people with expertise to discuss, and where everyone can listen.

Norway and Sweden are not liberals. Those countries has big taxes. Those are social democatry countries(left wing).

Liberal = low taxes, minium goverment

Social democraty = big taxes, big goverment

Conservative = medium taxes, medium goverment

I'm a liberty Republican (that is, a Republican who leans libertarian right). I used to be more hardcore GOP, but I don't agree with all of the GOP's principles.

It is complicated.

I fully support the idea of a Nation,the idea of tradition,etc.

But also I support worker rights,and I am against discriminating and freedom restrictions,etc.

A little right wing,a little left wing....

None of that is true.

You definitions are off, Conservatives are low taxes and low government, Liberals are medium taxes medium government and Socialists are high taxes, and large government.

Liberals and socialists are both considered left wing just ones more extreme than the other.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html finland? basically the same country?