Political labels

[Urbane]

I've been involved in many discussions in recent years on the Castanet Forum and elsewhere about political labels. What do all of these labels mean? Conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, left-wing, right-wing? I'm not even sure how to label my own place on the political spectrum.

I hear many self-proclaimed conservatives say they want government to get out of people's lives but then they want laws prohibiting abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage. I'm in favour of allowing all of those things and letting people decide for themselves. Does that make me left-wing? Libertarian? Other?

I can go along with the progressive income tax such as it is but I'm not thrilled with efforts to redistribute the wealth. And I don't see the need for government to own liquor stores or even to be involved directly with auto insurance. I like the idea of the government regulating these things but not being actively involved in running these enterprises. And in general I think governments spend too much. And why should governments use tax money to subsidize daycares? That means that people with no kids or couples who decide to have one partner stay home with the kids are helping to support those households where both parents are working. In general it just seems to me that government just keeps growing and growing and at some point we need to step back and ask ourselves if we can't do more things on our own rather than relying on government.

If I had to label myself I would call myself a fiscal conservative who is a libertarian on the social issues. I don't think any one term defines my political beliefs. How about others? How would you describe yourself?

Edit to add: More info - I'm in favour of universal healthcare. I would rather have the sins of omission of the government as opposed to the sins of commission of the private insurance companies. I still think that a dual-track system (private and public) is the way to go.

[strwbrrydvl]

I'm not even sure how to label my own place on the political spectrum.

This statement rings true for me. I tend to agree with much of one party but a part of me favors certain policies of another. I don't particularly like the political labels since not one of them suits my preference as to what should be done in all the major aspects of government. I primarily have a left winged stance in social issues but yet they are many aspects I have a strongly conservative view on; the same with financial management of our country. What is one to do? I suppose just vote for the platform you can identify with the best even if not all points you completely agree with.. Then, hope for the best outcome with whichever party is leading us.

[grammafreddy]

Urbane, I think you've summed me up pretty well. Now, how do we go about getting a political party that matches our ideals?

I want government in all in its forms simplified. I think over time government had evolved into empires by bureaucrats, and that red tape and confusion creates more of them - and that's their objective.

I'd also like to see a whole revision of the systems whereby seniors get dinged for all of society's demands. Over their lives, seniors have more than contributed their share to all aspects of Canadian life, and by the time they reach their elder years they should be exempt from a lot of it.

I also think Canadians need to be forced to become fiscally responsible. The only way I can see to do that is remove some of the social funding they now use for a crutch for bad financial management.

And then there's education ............ another of my peeves. Families need to stop treating the school system as a babysitting service and substitute parent and they need to step up to the plate and do the job themselves. Publicly funded schools are for learning basic skills of mathematics, science, communication and geography, not providing everything parents are too lazy or too "busy" to deal with themselves. And they certainly are NOT for pushing their own political or religious agendas and scare tactics.

So, I guess I am Libertarian with one foot on the left side of the line.

[JLives]

That is why I don't believe in politcal parties. We should be voting on issues not party platforms.

[grammafreddy]

That is why I don't believe in politcal parties. We should be voting on issues not party platforms.

And then who or what would carry out the implementation of the issues?

[JLives]

That is why I support Direct Democracy. We put administrators in place soley to implement the will of the people, true democracy.

[Urbane]

That is why I support Direct Democracy. We put administrators in place soley to implement the will of the people, true democracy.

But it's so much fun to blame the politicians when things go poorly. Under your plan we could only blame ourselves (LOL).

[Urbane]

Direct democracy sounds good, Jenny, but do you think people would really study the issues and make sound decisions? People tend to want lots of services but seem to want other people to pay for them so you might have the majority trying to force the minority (the super rich) to pay an inordinate amount of money in taxes for example. The upcoming HST referendum is an example of direct democracy and I wonder what percentage of the population will take time to really study the tax in order to decide whether or not it's better than the GST/PST. I do agree that people tend to get caught up in their party affiliation rather than thinking through the actual issues but I'm just not convinced that a system of direct democracy would be better than what we have now.

[grammafreddy]

How would a population of nearly 34 million people choose national administrators?

Maybe we would elect them ... and then, isn't that what we do now?

[JLives]

We elect on the promises of what they want to do, not to carry out what WE want them to do. Beyond their vote as a citizen, politicians shouldn't have so much say on the issues. It is our country and it should be a fundamental right that we run it the way we want it run. It would be difficult for backroom deals and payoffs to occur when your dealing with 30 million people unless you have very deep pockets.

I think with the advances of technology it will make alot more sense in about 10-15 years. We can have the conversation and do the research we need to do online. Referendums are a form of Direct Democracy, it would just be like having a referendum for all of our issues. But not only do we get to decide how to solve an issue, we get to decide what is an issue in the first place.

[steven lloyd]

Direct democracy sounds good, Jenny, but do you think people would really study the issues and make sound decisions? People tend to want lots of services but seem to want other people to pay for them so you might have the majority trying to force the minority (the super rich) to pay an inordinate amount of money in taxes for example. The upcoming HST referendum is an example of direct democracy and I wonder what percentage of the population will take time to really study the tax in order to decide whether or not it's better than the GST/PST. I do agree that people tend to get caught up in their party affiliation rather than thinking through the actual issues but I'm just not convinced that a system of direct democracy would be better than what we have now.

I have to agree. Direct democracy is a great ideal, and yes, we could fairly easily develop the technology to make it work. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out Urbane, the electorate as a whole is not educated enough nor even interested enough to expend the mental energy to critically study all the issues before casting a vote (let alone muster the personal courage to be truly objective while studying each issue). I fear the outcome of this upcoming HST referendum may just prove our point.

[Glacier]

The political spectrum is not a continuum from one extreme on the left to complete opposite on the right, but rather one with liberalism in the middle and varying and contrasting forms of interventionism toward the left and right. There are many examples around us to illustrate this point. Sunday shopping is one, where the right and left both wanted it to stay in place but for entirely different reasons.

I'm of the opinion that the ideal place to be on the political spectrum is liberal or close to it. Not in the context of liberal as we know it today, but liberal in the classical sense.

Liberalism spawned from the Protestant Reformation and is a principle in which our country was founded. Moreso in the States with the likes of liberals such as Thomas Jefferson. Even though we have strayed away from the liberal principles of hard work, frugality, and individual self-reliance, liberals are still around today - even here on Castanet.

For a good in-depth look into the political spectrum, please have a read through the following link.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... pectru.htm

[Homeownertoo]

Direct democracy is a great ideal, and yes, we could fairly easily develop the technology to make it work. Unfortunately ... the electorate as a whole is not educated enough nor even interested enough to expend the mental energy to critically study all the issues before casting a vote (let alone muster the personal courage to be truly objective while studying each issue). I fear the outcome of this upcoming HST referendum may just prove our point.

Which puts you quite firmly in the camp of the American founding fathers, who they tempered their democratic ideals with republican gov't, and why they were more concerned with liberty than democracy in the first place.

I am perhaps more sympathetic to the cause of direct democracy, letting the chips fall where they may within a robust constitution that protects liberties, minorities and natural rights -- except for one problem I've no solution to: who does the bureaucracy answer to? Direct democracy may even be inimical to responsible gov't, at least within the large, overweening burearcratic state that now exists, because it cannot, IMO, provide adequate oversight to the bureaucracy and there is no one to be held accountable for its transgressions.

[Homeownertoo]

I'm of the opinion that the ideal place to be on the political spectrum is liberal or close to it. Not in the context of liberal as we know it today, but liberal in the classical sense.

Liberalism spawned from the Protestant Reformation and is a principle in which our country was founded. Moreso in the States with the likes of liberals such as Thomas Jefferson.

... whereas modern (post-modern?) liberalism was spawned in the egalitarian and relentlessly secular values of the French Revolution and amended by the various marxisms that followed. Makes for a confusing political stew today.