What are there... 500k or so Libertarians in the United States (at least party members). So something less than 1% of all registered voters? Also seems a good number of right-leaning people here people identify as "libertarians". Is it unfashionable to identify as a republican, or simply cooler saying your're libertarians?
Most likely lean libertarian however they end up voting for the Republican since the libertarian candidate has zero chance of winning. That being said, had Ron Paul run on the libertarian ticket in 2016, he might have won given the unpopularity of the two candidates.
I guess we Democrats need to invent a cooler sounding party to identify with. How about the Peace and Love... Peace and Love Party (in a cool Ringo Starr accent).
The thing I don't like about these political spectra and matrices is that, while you can pick where you land, you implicitly have to submit to the framework they offer and be hemmed in. If I were to say I consider myself a socialist and a capitalist at the same time, someone will object that's not allowed, its contradictory. The typical matrix puts individualism-to-authoritarianism on one spectrum and free-market-to-command-economy on the other. It seems to me like one is a subset of the other (though obviously people do pick different spots on these axes). I'd propose a different matrix. One axis would be individualism-to-authoritarianism. The other would measure inclusiveness-to-exclusiveness. Together, the matrix can show how much a subject believes an individual is a full member of society and how much freedom that individual has in the society. Or, how much a member is to be subjected to official power and how much to conformity. Sounds like a very modern idea with the democrats' diversity platform, but it was actually the debate on whether the Nazis are left or right that makes me consider it. Revisionists want to say Nazism is left because they were authoritarian but that obviously flies in the face of the traditional spectrum we understand. Why should the Nazis be on the right? It's because, from inception, they were based on a racial politics instead of one built on economics. They were radically exclusive, on race, on religion, culture, sexuality, gender. Wherever we see these highly nationalist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, or xenophobic movements, we recognize them as 'right-wing' but not the same 'right-wing' as the small government, free market, rugged individual right-wing people. These two types on the exclusive end of inclusiveness-to-exclusiveness axis are at opposite ends of the authoritarianism axis. The 4 quadrants, then, are; the ultra-nationalists, the globalists, the anarchists, and the libertarians. The point of all that is -- "where you fall" politically depends a lot on the framework you're applying so you need to think about what's important. On the traditional matrix, Trump might look like a sort of Republican -- maybe high on authoritarianism but economically free marketeer. On my matrix, he's in the ultra-nationalist quadrant while the erstwhile values of the Republican party would fall more in the libertarian.
It was almost a couple decades ago when Libertarian was considered an unpopular extreme while Ayn Rand's Objectivism considered borderline sociopathic. We're playing fast and loose with the law, so anything goe$?
ran across this online quiz again. haven't budged much You are a centrist social libertarian. Right: 0.71, Libertarian: 4.93
I've always considered myself center left, but the crazy liberals on this board say I'm conservative, so maybe I'm a moderate conservative?
I’ve drifted left since college. I was a moderately conservative liberation when I took quizzes. Now You are a center-left moderate social libertarian. Left: 2.56, Libertarian: 1.64
Either you are for Elon or for Bernie and Warren Either you want to move humanity forward or you want to live like dogs in North Korea @Space Ghost @Os Trigonum
I'm offended at the insinuation. Get your mind out of the drama queen gutter! But seriously, his op-ed is more anecdotal and laden with anxiety than the chock-fulls of Reason that he ostensibly should aspire to. I guess the symbol of milo is good enough for him to think it could happen to him yet milo was more provacateur than legit Con. He says libs don't care, yet it's the same argument since milo been banned and no new digital martyrs have appeared to warrant a list of his liking. I think the issue is deeper for him then he lets on. Milo was also entwined with Gamer Gate, where a bunch of losers harassed women who spoke up against female misrepresentation in media. Those people aren't cancelled but it happened the other way. The writer only thinks about himself and potentially his personal relationships, and claims he never received online abuse for his sexuality. Abuse is relative and he already wrote he formed a tougher skin against that as he came to grips with his sexuality growing up. Maybe he should come to grips what conservatism means and what a blanket defense for all of it brings? Because it's not necessarily what he writes that will get de-platformed...
related South Korean makes rare defection to North through demilitarized zone https://nypost.com/2022/01/02/south-korean-defects-to-north-korea-through-demilitarized-zone/
