I hope you realise "right" and "left" mean whole different things in different countries. The biggest right wing party in The Netherland is considered left by American standards. Democrats (who are supposed to be the left party in the USA), are a right-winged party by our standards.
Anyhow, I most often vote for a left-winged party, but I call myself a social liberal. I am active for the Pirate Party in election time for their views on privacy and information sharing, but not between elections.
Ok. Conservative, but not in all aspects like healthcare or abortion. Those two fields are more complex to position myself in one or other side of the fence.
As somebody that has lived in two socialist countries that now are in deep shit, I can not support that ideology. No matter what others told me about the wonderful effects of socialism. In fact, I radicalize more if pressured and to piss off certain individuals
In Venezuela and Spain is a disaster (more disastrous in the former one), with the companies, (the ones that help to maintain a country with their taxes) leaving the ship. I do not say it is impossible to make it work, but the socialist system allows the lazy workers to get away with their laziness. Apparently Nordic countries have a more civilized population. I do not know why, but they seem to care about the country more (cleaner cities for example) and their public system work, but again, less people, less problems.
Not to mention that in my country an state worker can not get fired, not matter what he or she does, so the abuses are common
I am vaguely left-libertarian. I advocate a form of decentralized market socialism, political reforms that would allow for better representation of the desires of the citizenry, and complete social equality (regardless of race, sex, religious views, etc).
I would consider myself a "democratic socialist," but I'm sympathetic to a variety of left or center-libertarian forms ranging from social democracy in the manner of the Scandinavian states, to the anarcho-communism of Kropotkin.
I'm waiting for someone to come in here saying very dogmatically: "I'm a right libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist who believes in liberty and traditional values against taxes and welfare" which is really nothing more than a fancy way of saying "I am both a racist and a misogynist, and I don't want to contribute to society".
Thank goodness I am a human being and don't subject myself to such nonsense. Speaking of which, if I told you right now that I was a socialist, I would have to respond to countless of never ending posts of some raving lunatic who would equate me to the devil as he likes to pretend that he knows what 'socialism' is because the white men in suits on TV told him that "it's bad". About every argument I've ever heard against me is either a cold war era strawman and a flat out transmisogynist insult. It gets really tiring trying to beat logic into someone who thinks 'logic' is something you buy, along with the false sense of 'liberty' or 'security'.
Really, I'm just glad that the Ron Paul Fanclub is as small as it is, giving that it's crumbling prestige has left it to nothing more than a internet meme on tumblr, while actual oppressed people are still fighting their good fights and all without having to ever read Atlas Shrugged. Thank God.
Yeah, racist, misogynist parasites insulting me for being against racism, misogyny and social parasitism. There hasn't been a single libertarian I have ever met that wasn't a misogynist. Countless times I've been called a "little girl" and to be told to go "play with dolls" when ever I try to be patient with them. I've come to accept the fact that "Right Libertarianism" is the ideology of those three things combined into one chaotic, abstract organism. Ayn Rand herself hated women and Arab people, and Ron Paul's son who was named after her can not cease to amaze me of how much of a terrible, woman hating douchebag he is.
Hell, I have a comment on my page from someone associated from dA libertarians, calling me a "Transgender Faggot". I've never even meet this person! I believe in the idea that women should be able to work with equal pay to that of men, that everyone who works and contributes a little something to society everyday should have access to basic needs with out hassle, and that no one should be discriminated by parasitic employers and disadvantaged by who they are, what religion they believe in, how they identify themselves as, and who every they choose to fall in love with. But apparently, this makes me "the devil"?
Although originally been coined by Joseph DeJacque, a French anarcho-communist, the word 'libertarian' itself has evolved into nothing more than a doublethink term here in the United States. 'Liberty' isn't something you buy, liberty is something that's supposed to be natural without any interference what so ever. Liberty is not a dichotomy; if your version of 'liberty' interferes with another individuals liberty, then it's not liberty! The whole idea of right libertarianism is cute, but some of us have to work for a living and could care very little over what some 14 year old's on the internet thinks about his weed and his dads guns. I know, because I used to believe in the same thing at that age.
I used to be a liberal, and thought that everybody's needs should go sated. But then I grew up.
This is true, incidentally, although the last bit is merely inflammatory. Does it invalidate your political philosophies that I discarded them as I acquired more knowledge?
You haven't grown up. Not because you haven't given up your political philosophies, but because you can't separate ideas from the people espousing them. Ideas stand on their own merits. Hitler liked cats; should we hate cats? (Note: I have no idea whether or not Hitler liked cats or not, I'm just drawing an analogy to demonstrate the fallacy at work here.)
Communitarianism. It's in effect some minor degree of leftism, but which attempts to limit people getting dependent on a welfare state combined with social ideas which average out middle, but take some from either side. (But leaving behind things which are obviously inane.) And the focus is still on lack of government intrusion in places where it is not absolutely needed. (But allowing it for places where it overall can be useful.)
I'm definitely a leftist, but I also agree with people in the right on some issues. I believe in the state taking care of its people, offering welfare benefits, free education, progressive taxation and so on. In exchange people should try to better their lives as well as they can so that they won't have to rely on the state too much. If people just outright refuse to work, they should have their benefits taken away.
I'm a palestinian girl .. i don't know if you know palestine but its occupied by what's called Israel ... so i live in political life every second ... ! its our land and my Grandparents lived in it peacefully till the year 1948 when jewish occupied it and since that year till now we are living in conflict ... by palestinian resistant and israel terrorism,
yesterday for example kids where going home from there school when suddenly israeli soldiers start shooting at them and they killed a 17 year old boy called saleem
I'm well aware of the situation in Palestine/Israel. It's unfortunate that Europe and the US support a nation that outright refuses to open up to the outside, and to act in the interest of its people, as well as the people of Palestine.
Really? So the reason an employer is willing to hire you and pay you tens of thousands of dollars is just to make a marginal impact on the unemployment rate? That's the only reason?
Who said anything about any one employer? You specified, and I quote: "Someone". Also, is that the only reason, no? But how many employers do you know who create a job because it contributes to society? How many employers actually do the math on how much any given person contributes to society?
It seems to me you're thinking of an employee contributing to the company, which is a different question altogether.
They don't have to do the math. Their self-interest inherently leads to societal benefit.
Every employer seeks to only hire employees that are useful to the company. The company needs those contributions, because it helps them more effectively offer something useful to society. Offering something useful to society is the only way they can make a profit and benefit themselves. Hence, employees are only hired to help companies benefit society.
No, they're jobs that contribute nothing and are a symptom of ineffectual government, and have a vested interest in keeping it that way. They're not some unsung heroes of shitty government. They want the government to be opaque. They want to earn money off of it. Because, were it the alternative, they would be out of a job.
They pay taxes though. That was my point, I apologize if it came out wrong or misleading. I think that unemployment should be something you receive if you cannot work, or have just been fired, not something you live off of. If they cannot find work by themselves, I also think that the government should provide work, for example put them to work in administrative (low level of course) or light manual jobs.
Back when I was unemployed, my benefits weren't anywhere close to being enough to live off. It's one of those arguments which keeps surprising me, as there are very few places in Europe where it's actually possible.
When I was unemployed, I was forced to work for free for various employers, on the promise they'd hire me when my up to 90 day trial period was over. The employers always did the same thing: keep me around for 90 days while telling my guidance councellor I was doing a good job and then send me away with a bad review or a convenient excuse at the end of the cycle.