This kind of goes along with the post I made just a little while ago, but I’m curious as to what “team” I’m on: liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.
Here are some of my basic beliefs (I’ll probably think of more later):
I believe that gov’t should be as small as possible, but I also think that the government should be responsible for making the “pursuit of happiness” possible for everyone, which is to say that things like health care and a good education should not be left to those who can afford it.
I think people should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want, as long as it causes others no bodily harm (I’m sure there are exceptions). I think the war on drugs and the outrage over homosexuals is absurd (and a waste of time and money), but I also don’t think that someone should be allowed to smoke in a public building because it violates my right not to. This is all to say that there are certain things that I find wrong, even disgusting, that other people choose to do, but I don’t think, in most cases, its up to the government to decide whether its write or wrong.
I believe that globalization has brought many people a better life, and I feel that trade among countries leads to a more peaceful world. However, I think that free trade has proven in many ways to be a way for the rich to get richer and exercise lopsided power. I believe in fair trade, leveling the playing field and not allowing those with money to do as they wish (like lobby for more subsidies from the gov’t).
I believe that the United Nations is necessary, but that the veto power of the countries that have it may very well (or has already) made it totally ineffective. The United Nations should be a more democratic body.
I believe the death penalty is an ineffective and costly crime deterrent.
I believe that there are too many people in our prisons for crimes that don’t merit jail time. I believe that many (certainly not all) criminals can be rehabilitated and be good citizens if given the proper tools. I also believe that neighborhoods with high crime problems are not so because the people in those neighborhoods are born bad but because there are socio-economic strains put on them that can be alleviated with the proper attention.
I believe that if you commit a crime, no matter the aforementioned strains, you should be punished. That also goes for wealthier, white people, who more often get off with lighter sentences.
I believe that the US should submit to the rule of international law in the ways that it so often demands of other countries.
Seriously, how can a “small” government be responsible for making everyone happy? I think you need to either rethink that premise or realize that you want a big government.
There is a large difference between the phrases “responsible for making everyone happy” and “responsible for making the ‘pursuit of happiness’ possible”. The former being a responsibility to make everyone happy, the latter being a responsibility to provide the opportunities for happiness.
I am not sure that I personally would have used the word “responsible”, but I do have similar thoughts. It is a balancing act - I too am concerned about an over-sized government infringing on liberties and wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers money - but I also feel that a civilized country should provide a safety net for people who cannot afford health care. I also believe that wealth alone should not disqualify you from a college education. It is true that these concerns would pull policy in opposite directions, but that isn’t a bad thing. You want to be aware of the costs of programs and you want to come up with creative ways to minimize these while still remaining true to the program’s purpose.
Everyone should be a member of the “Contradiction Party”, unless they are the most extreme anarchist or the most extreme communist.
There’s no contradiction. He said gov’t should be “as small as possible” and then went on to list the responsibilities that constrain that possibility.
Of course understanding this tends to expose “small government” talk for the kind of empty rhetoric it is. (No offense to the OP, it’s rhetoric thats endemic to the American politcal scene and almost unavoidable.) It always means “government should be as small as it can be as long as it accomplishes X, Y, and Z.” People almost never differ over whether gov’t should be “small,” rather, they differ over X Y and Z.
Just to the right of Gandhi. I blame the neo-con movement for moving away from my proper conservative principles, and shifting the entire scale to the left…
Here I am. A little surprising since the last time I took this test I was a bit farther to the left but the libertarian aspect is unchanged. I guess I’ve probably changed a little in my economic outlook, but not much.
The only problem I have with this test is that some of the questions would be better answered on a 1-10 scale than a 4 point.
Somewhat left, and pretty aggressively libertarian it looks like to me. Which about makes sense to me. I’m aggressively a social libertarian, and economically I tend to lean a little left.
