Why did you choose your political beliefs?

[Aquophia]

Mostly from exposure to family, friends, media, schooling, my own though processes, and maybe genetics, Socially, i'm pretty liberal, but economically, I tend to lean more to the right so I don't hold any strong political ties with the mainstream parties. Libertarians make more sense to me than any other party, but that is as close as it gets for me.

[ATTENTION DUELISTS]

I used to be quite the liberal, but then when I saw a quote of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838), which stated "Surtout, pas trop de zèle." ("Above all, not too much zeal."), I realized that I had far too often allowed my emotions get the better of my personal judgment on matters regarding governmental policy. Nowadays, before I make up my mind up on any social or economic issue, I ask myself these questions.

1. Does the proposed Act or legislation have a proper purpose which will benefit the broader society over the long term?

2. Which group(s) benefit(s) at the expense of others? Is there a way that both parties can come to a collective agreement and understanding, or will one party's views have to assert dominance over the other?

3. What is the cost-benefit analysis like? Do the benefits outweigh the costs for the society/economy or not?

4. Is the moral basis of such a decision a utilitarian or individualistic one?

5. Have I properly and fully heard both sides of the argument?

6. Have both sides of the argument presented clear and concise statements as to why they believe that they are correct, as well as providing empirical, statistical and/or quantitative information or data to support their claim? Are such information and data applicable in the case of the current issue?

7. From a neutral observer's point of view, what can be said about the level of knowledge that each side has into the philosophical and/or systematic foundations of the other's argument? Are they backing up their argument with objective fact and data, or simply using generalizations and stating a subjective opinion that is not backed up by statistical evidence?

8. To what extent have I come up with and concluded upon my judgment purely out of my own conscience, instead of simply following along with the majority, or the 'herd' of people?

so now you fall at least somewhat left of liberal, eh?

Not really. Most of the time, I find that liberals fail, or at least dissatisfy, points 6 and 7, by making generalizations (usually aimed at capitalism) to support their argument. I'm more of a centrist/moderate, although I'd probably lean ever so slightly to the left.

[Novairia]

I'm a pinko.

I turned commie learning about my family history & in turn much more about native american history. I think the rich are basically soulless. With that being said, I do have pride in my people, some i'm not a perfect Marxist. I do look up to Eugene Debs. I just think we should strive for a classless society.

Ahh yes, because Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Richard Branson (just to name a few) are soulless rich people.


ANYWAYS.. I would call myself a Moderate.

I do believe the welfare system creates a "lazy" class in the population. There ARE people that NEED welfare, but unfortunately many people just sign on for the free $$ and make up bullshit excuses to recieve welfare. There need to be a much better selection and oversight system in place to protect the ones that need it and kick the "lazy"s out.

I do believe in protecting the enviroment but not to the extent that oh say.. Greenpeace goes too. Many things the "enviromentalists" do actully hinders the growth of green tech in the long run because of their biased views on whatever is "trendy" at that moment and will then disregard anything else worth delving into because it would be a "waste" of green funding.
Wind mills are crap, put a PV Solar system on every roof and minus the battery storage, and stay connected to the grid. Reduces power need right away, will help greatly in the long run, does not require the expensive batteries that turns so many people away from PV Solar.

I do believe in the virtue and NEED of having constant balanced budgets and a nice surplus stockpiled up for those rainy days or once in a while expensive projects.

Liberals are too nutty and massive flip floppers.

Conservatives are too one sided on issues and seem to refuse to check for the possibility of a better option.

[Free Soviets]

so now you fall at least somewhat left of liberal, eh?

Not really. Most of the time, I find that liberals fail, or at least dissatisfy, points 6 and 7, by making generalizations (usually aimed at capitalism) to support their argument. I'm more of a centrist/moderate, although I'd probably lean ever so slightly to the left.

well, don't judge policies by their popular defenders or politicians. check the wonks.

on basically everything, the hard data flatly refutes the right. especially the american right, but more generally, too.

[Free Soviets]

I do believe in the virtue and NEED of having constant balanced budgets

on what possible grounds did you come to that conclusion?

[Hittanryan]

History, when it comes to economics. I tend towards social democracy, and I think relatively free markets can be a force for progress. When entire industries are allowed to consolidate into monopolies (private or state-run), destroying competition, then the free market becomes not free, and is no longer useful. This happened during the Industrial Revolution. Totally regulation-free markets will inevitably become unfree of their own accord.

Furthermore, funneling money to the rich is bad policy. Assuming they even run a business, they're not going to create new jobs if the market doesn't demand it. They already have everything they need and want, so giving them a little extra money won't result in increased spending on their part. If you give extra money to lower and middle classes, however, it will go much further in furthering economic growth.

8 years of the Bush Administration's incompetence shaped my stances on foreign and social policies. Negotiation and multilateral strategies are the way to go, not cowboy diplomacy. You can't spread democracy to a country by bombing it, you shouldn't assume you'll be welcomed as liberators in any country of which you don't know the history, and the civilian leadership should listen when the military says its plan commits insufficient forces for the job.

Culture wars issues are distractions. Gay people are people so they get the same rights as everyone else. Religion needs to stay out of politics, we've got too many more important things we need to fix.

[Ereria]

I personally would like an Empire like the French Empire under one Emperor like Napoleon.

[Ereria]

I personally would like an Empire like the French Empire under one Emperor like Napoleon.

Edit: And yes I dont know what its called

[Ostroeuropa]

Consequentialist Non-Propertarian Georgio-Minarcho Libertarian-Syndicalist
(Chose radical.)

and because i'm a consequentialist.
I can't shake this damned sense of perspective, you see.

[ATTENTION DUELISTS]

I personally would like an Empire like the French Empire under one Emperor like Napoleon.

Edit: And yes I dont know what its called

VIVE L'EMPEREUR!!!

[Foguk]

first was a slight liberal, definitely left wing, (maybe a -1 on the scale). This was about grade 4.
From grade 5 to 11 I became more and more left. Eventually calling myself a communist.
In grade 12 I realized I don't put faith in communism, so therefore I stopped calling myself one. But I'm so far left it'd be hard to see any major difference.

Past grade 12, I've always called myself (if someone asks) a leftist. IRL I call myself a extreme-leftist.

The reason? I saw the world around me. I chose far left ideology because I think its the most moral, sustainable, and compassionate mode of governance.

I chose it not because its the path to making my country (IRL) the most powerful (which I don't believe, I believe that if a nation wants to be a superpower it must be capitalist).

[Ostroeuropa]

I personally would like an Empire like the French Empire under one Emperor like Napoleon.

Edit: And yes I dont know what its called

Revolutionary Empire

[Helcasia]

I am a progressive & utilitarian, and i refuse to apply any other political terms to my political beliefs, or rather lack of beliefs.
I say lack of beliefs because i favour the use of science, logic, and reason, not beliefs, to solve political and social problems.
Progressive is rather self-explanatory...I don't like we have now and want stuff to change.

[Sedikal]

It's all about moderation

[Ostroeuropa]

It's all about moderation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUpM2bUK ... r_embedded
Why i hate you...

[Astralsideria]

I'm a Tory. I don't see why government needs to be everywhere and do everything, but I do think that it needs to be strong in doing what it does do. Although I can understand the almost-indispensable trade advantages to the European Union, the thought of a federal Europe worries me, and I feel we should be keeping as much national sovereignty as possible. I don't support abolishing the House of Lords, but I can understand Lord Steel of Aikenwood's proposals to make appointments to that House as apolitical as possible and to allow the number of hereditary peers (except the Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal, and the Marquess of Cholmondeley as Lord Great Chamberlain) to steadily dwindle by death. I'm not entirely convinced about there ever having been a need to abolish the House of Lords Appellate Committee, and to turn the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary into Justices of the Supreme Court, but since it's happened, it might as well stay that way. As a Welshman, I'm not convinced that devolution is working, and I feel it needs to be either very profoundly reformed or else done away with altogether. As a Unionist, I've nailed my colours to the mast about opposing Scottish independence. Above all, I believe in the preservation of the monarchy, as a vital part of the United Kingdom, an invaluable lynchpin to our government, and a useful ornament to society. In economics, I don't see any reason for the government to do things that the market can do for itself.

It's all just sort of come together from my studies of politics, and my version of common sense. It's not very detailed or profound, but I can usually find an opinion that fits with these views with a bit of contortion and a bit of pragmatism. I imagine they'll steadily evolve over time within the confines of the fundamentals.

[Angermanland]

i get to confuse everyone by being:

a monarchist
an environmentalist (or at least, i consider it to be a significant factor to consider.)
socially conservative (or possibly even reactionary now. side effect of the current state changing rather than my views changing.)
economically radical (no, that has nothing to do with communism and/or libertarianism. go read Jane Jacobs' 'the economy of cities' and 'cities and the wealth of nations' for more of a clue on my economic ideas)
nationalist (that is, anti-globalist and not a fan of obsessing about race)
very much opposed to corporate control of government, intellectual property (and non-infrastructure monopolies in general) corruption, and regulatory capture.
very much in favour of transparency and accountability in government.
not at ALL in favour of representative democracy. (frankly, it Isn't. it's designed to maintain the status quo and prevent revolt or civil war, not actually take the public's view or input into account or do things in their interest.)
i'm also generally in favour of public health care and social welfare for individuals, (though i don't think the national level is the right one to implement anything with major economic ramifications at, given that the nation is not a meaningful economic entity.)
oh, the concept of corporate personhood needs to go die in a fire.
and anything 'too big to fail' is already 'too big to exist' and should be broken up before economic crashes bring about a need to bail it out. (which is, oh gasp, a 'socialist' trick. the elites quite like socialism when it results in the tax payer footing their bills, oddly enough )

not quite sure What one would call that rather interesting mix, so i just hit 'other'.

(edit: also, Jane Jacobs' 'cities and the wealth of nations' makes a very strong argument Against things like the Euro (and the US dollar... and, really, any currency over multiple city-regions) decades before it came about. essentially, using a common currency will tend to support whichever city-region (or supply region, unfortunately) produces the largest share of exports to cities OUTSIDE that currency's zone of use, with all other cities within that zone of use getting faulty feedback causing whatever problems they have economically to be magnified and rarely fixed properly, eventually leading to stagnation and collapse, economically. ever notice that the world's few remaining city states tend to have less economic problems than larger countries? this is part of why.)

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Because I think they made the most sense to me.

[Meridiani Planum]

The titles asks the main question. My beliefs are a mixture of right wing and left wing beliefs. I wouldn't be a conservative because I think they are just a bunch of old fashioned bigots. At the same times I wouldn't be a liberal because I think their ideals just simply won't work if applied in the real world.

I didn't "choose" them so much as found them persuasive.

I think there might be an extent to which I was a "natural" classical liberal, though I don't know how much of that was genes and how much was being taught to appreciate personal freedom. However, I still could very easily have ended up supporting big government. It took much reading and thought to finally arrive at my libertarian convictions.

[Jafas United]

Because I think they made the most sense to me.

This.

[Forster Keys]

Personal experience. Most ideologies seem to stem from rationalised emotions in my experience.

[Cameroi]

why did i choose my "political beliefs"? because i do not choose to knowingly lie to myself. belief has nothing to do with it.

an observation is not a belief. ideological prejudice is a form of prejudice and all prejudice is harmful.

it only exists as an excuse to get people to go along with aggressiveness.

aggressiveness is the root of tyranny and the one and only thing that evil is.

no matter what ideology, form of government, economic theory, system of belief, or anything else is used as an excuse for it.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Mainly because Fascism makes sense to me and also probably because my authoritarian views are influenced by my own country.

And I'm also Fascist because of my personal experiences. Among other things.

The notion of an absolute leader and a syncretic ideology have long appealed to me. Conventional leftist and rightist ideologies tend to be very dry and coldness. Liberal democracy and all it's checks and balances have long restricted the executive power of the State and Fascism seeks to counter that. Even in many democracies, governments are held hostage to the whims of the people and in some cases, this prevents a critical addressing of current issues and at the same time, weakens pragmatic common-sense (I am also a firm believer in pragmatism) in exchange for populism. This has been acutely demonstrated in Greece and Europe as well as the United States where political deadlock and instability is rife. Fascism and the Strong State prevents that from becoming a reality and ensures the vitality of the State just as it should be. Of course I am a bit of a technocrat as well.

I have no sympathy for dictatorships that fail to strive for the benefit and strengthening of the State and people. The dictator who squanders his resources away and who does not plan his conquests properly deserves to be shot.

[Camelza]

left-wing social democrat :nordic model,80s sweden,culture,fair trade etc

it's not too revolutionary like communism/revolutionary socialism,but it still is radical and pro-people
I like the nordic model

[Thesan]

"OTHER"

I'm a "5 star", Italian Indignado, I believe in a strong welfare state where the poors and weaks are under the protection of government, but I'm also in favor of entrepreneurs because I know that socialism/communism has its limits, also I'm against mafia and corruption (actually no party in my country is doing a good "war" against these) and pro-environment.

That's why I've chosen "5 Star", because they're like me. We're apolitical, pro-human rights and pro-freedom of speech.