NationStates Jolt Archive

It is interesting how mutated the terms "left" and "right" have become. When they were first used in the National Convention of the French Revolution, they were seating arrangements. The left was for those that wanted change, the right for those that wanted to keep things the same, or go back to the old ways, and the center were the moderates. Here are my definitions for each in the poll.
Radical: A person so convinced that their way is the future, that they often use violence to bring change. Not all radicals are violent, but they can't be reasoned with, either.
Liberal: A person that wants vast change, but is willing to do it legally.
Moderate: A person who wants some change, and is often a mediator between the left and the right.
Conservative: A person that doesn't want change, and wants to turn back the clock on a few things. However, they are willing to do this legally.
Reactionary: A person who wants to go back to old ways, and often isn't afraid of violence to do so. Of course, not all reactionaries are violent.

I want vast change. I want to change our socialist, militaristic 'democracy' back to the laissez faire, limited government republic our Founders gave us.

And if you disagree, PLEASE DON'T FLAME!!!!!!!!!

I want vast change. I want to change our socialist, militaristic 'democracy' back to the laissez faire, limited government republic our Founders gave us.

And if you disagree, PLEASE DON'T FLAME!!!!!!!!!
*lights up his flamethrower*


Oh...don't flame. Sorry.

*lights up his flamethrower*


Oh...don't flame. Sorry.

Lol :D

I want vast change. I want to change our socialist, militaristic 'democracy' back to the laissez faire, limited government republic our Founders gave us.

And if you disagree, PLEASE DON'T FLAME!!!!!!!!!
You're in luck, I just ran out of lighter fluid.

Not really the term I'd use, but I suppose most of you would probably consider me a radical.

Of course this doesn't fit your definition too exactly... but...

Of course I do believe that what I believe is right, if I didn't I wouldn't believe in it...

I believe some bad is worth doing for the greater good, so yes, I'm not opposed to the use of violence if it becomes necessary (although I would see violence as a last resort type thing)

As to whether I can be reasoned with? Sure if you can present a well formulated, intelligent logical point that shows why what I believe is wrong and shows a better idea, then I will change my mind.

Of course no one ever seems to do this. Almost everyone who disagrees with me seems to just like yelling things such as "you're stupid" and things along those lines, without giving any real reasons (I don't count "that won't work" as a real reason, when I've explained why it would work and you haven't said anything that shows it to be wrong)

I have to say that, in the sense of change, I am a liberal. I want to see the end of protectionism and such in our government, and go to laissez-faire capitalism. I also want the government to recognize that the real root of terrorism, and many social-economic problems in third world nations, stem from their collectivist nature, and while I do not wish to convert them to some Ayn Rand superstate, I do wish to have an open society, for I believe openess, and a protection of intellectual rights, leads to individualism, and that leads to freedom. I guess that in this sense, I am a classic liberal.

who the hell is he?

Heh, I'm a radical. Though, that is only because I feel the only way to get the government off my back is with extreme force.

bump

Under the definitions laid above, I'd be a liberal. Much needs to be changed, but society must not be thrown out in the process.

bump

Moderate

Radical. What else would an anarchist like me be?

I'm a self described "conservatarian". I have some views which are libertarian and others which are conservative. The part of the Republican party which shares my views is the Republican Liberty Caucas. www.rlc.org

bump

Moderate, but that's moderate for UK. A moderate US citizen is probably a bit different.

Moderate, but that's moderate for UK. A moderate US citizen is probably a bit different.
Sure it is. It all depends on what you want changed marginally.

From the poll, there is some evidence that the NS forums are liberally biased...

From the poll, there is some evidence that the NS forums are liberally biased...
Hmm, from the postings on NS I am surprised there are not more American reactionaries, who want to roll back the Bush tax-cuts, Clean Skies law and all that.

Hmm, from the postings on NS I am surprised there are not more American reactionaries, who want to roll back the Bush tax-cuts, Clean Skies law and all that.
That'd be more conservative, I think. The left isn't eager to use terrorist tactics to force Congress to roll back tax cuts.

That'd be more conservative, I think. The left isn't eager to use terrorist tactics to force Congress to roll back tax cuts.You're right, my bad.

Hmm, from the postings on NS I am surprised there are not more American reactionaries, who want to roll back the Bush tax-cuts, Clean Skies law and all that.
I bet both Republicans and Democrats alike chose liberal or moderate definitions for themselves... they all want something to change...

I bet both Republicans and Democrats alike chose liberal or moderate definitions for themselves... they all want something to change...
We do. We all hate the way things are.

We do. We all hate the way things are.
Damn I should have voted reactionary!

Bring back the federalist party...

Go Alexander Hamilton!

Its so sad... that he never did get to be president...

Or Henry Clay... there was a genius of a man... but damn it... he also didn't get to be president...

Wait does being a reactionary involve physically going back in time... If not then never mind.

Damn I should have voted reactionary!

Bring back the federalist party...

Go Alexander Hamilton!

Its so sad... that he never did get to be president...

Or Henry Clay... there was a genius of a man... but damn it... he also didn't get to be president...

Wait does being a reactionary involve physically going back in time... If not then never mind.
No, it doesn't. Sorry :).

You know, I voted conservative, but I really don't like things they way they are. I don't like things the way they were, and I really don't like the path we are headed down. (we = USA)

I probably shouldn't have voted, though.

Liberal. To be more specific. Green.

I'm a self described "conservatarian". I have some views which are libertarian and others which are conservative. The part of the Republican party which shares my views is the Republican Liberty Caucas. www.rlc.org

You most likely come closest to my own views, although I try for more of a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society as a whole.

You most likely come closest to my own views, although I try for more of a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society as a whole.
Mine, too. I feel that the Republican party is the closer of the two to wanting individual liberties, but alas, they are not perfect. Still, what major party in the world is as close as they are in advocating individual rights and liberties, as opposed to "collective good" and such?
*Edit*
I looked at their site. They are my soul mate. They are for the spreading and protection of individual liberty, and the reduction of government intervention. However, they aren't nearly as extreme as the Liberatarian Party.
The only issue I disagree with them on, however, is their idea of foreign policy. The US should be engaged in helping the world achieve their natural rights of life, liberty, and property, not wall up behind Fortress America and become stuck-up prudes, for that is partly why the barbarians were a threat to Rome.

I can't even vote. Half my views are Radical half Reactionary it really doesn't make much sense. Sometimes I simultaneously hold both points of view on an issue.

Generally though the one issue that I am always the same one is freedoms political and civic. (Translation: the ones that our current administration are taking away.)(USA)

I can't even vote. Half my views are Radical half Reactionary it really doesn't make much sense. Sometimes I simultaneously hold both points of view on an issue.

Generally though the one issue that I am always the same one is freedoms political and civic. (Translation: the ones that our current administration are taking away.)(USA)
Yes, I have always thought that if you go far enough left or right, you can't really tell which side is which.

bump

bump

I am a pretty radical liberal, but I don't want radical liberals in office. Just because I believe in something doesn't necessarily mean it would work. Does that make any sense at all?

Is anyone else the same way?

My previous post along these lines (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7105687&postcount=53)

I commend you for posing this question, but didn't vote since I disagree even with these categories. Radical seems to mean far left and Reactionary seems to mean far right.
I would call myself a Radical Republican, in that I would do most anything to (certainly not keep, but) return America to being a Constitutional Republic. And yes, this does include taking up arms against my fellow citizens if nescessary. Not to enforce my views on the others, but to keep others from imposing their views upon me & my neighbors. The bloated federal government enforcing laws (or more properly, judicial pontifications) nationwide over constitutionally sovereign states is an abomination.
If you and your peers deem it nescessary to give condoms to school children in California does that mean that condoms MUST also be distributed in a state where noone within 100 miles of the school agrees? No, it certainly doesn't. This is an example. I could care less. I have no school age children. But if my peers in my state vote in a law prohibiting it due to it's being inconsistant with the beliefs of the local constituancy, that should be the end of the conversation. It should only be changed by a contrary local referendum. (voted back out by the same populace due to changes of opinion, circumstances or in the population itself.) I tremble with indignation every time a (purportedly) free citizen is given marching orders from the federal bureaucrats on high. They've certainly exceeded their authority, definately exceeded their abilities, and their actions count (in my book) as political repression of local voting constituancies who have the right to political control over their own government.

America is a great country, but not nearly as great as she used to be.
You tell me, which should I vote? Or as I said previously, do we need 250+ million classifications?

I bet both Republicans and Democrats alike chose liberal or moderate definitions for themselves... they all want something to change...

We do. We all hate the way things are.

The purposeful flaw of our two party system is, in order that noone gain enough of an upper hand to become tyrannical, we must compromise and therefore keep anyone from having things exactly as they please. This has worked for centuries, but this may well come to an end soon. It seems that America has reached a critical mass in that we've become nearly perfectly polarized in regards to the argument of federalism vs. republicanism. I both hope and fear for the revolution that Jefferson said we should both expect and pursue periodically so that the government remains the subject of the citizens. If it doesn't happen in my lifetime, I'll be surprised.

I disagree with the term "liberal" so i'm a radical I guess.

bump

The options are a bit sparse...the single-line "political spectrum" is insufficient, in my opinion, to classify people's viewpoints. I like the two-dimensional "political compass" (www.politicalcompass.org), but I feel it even falls short (not to mention the questions are a little bit biased). I think the best way to classify would be on a three-dimensional scale, shaped like a cylinder. One line going down the length of the cylinder marks "economic moderate," while a line exactly opposite marks "economic extremist." The standard left-right is shown along the circumference of the cylinder, between those two lines. Social issue classification occurs between the top and bottom of the cylinder; the top is marked "social libertarian," while the bottom is merked "social authoritarian." The third measure, that people don't ever seem to take on it's own, is government scale/structure. In the US, this would mainly take the form of federal vs state government. Before people jump on my back about the federal government being oppressive and thereby undermining liberty, I remind you that the state governments, given full sovereignty, could oppress their citizenry just as much as the federal government could. Full sovereignty to the states would be marked at the inside edge of the cylinder, while full sovereignty to the federal government would be marked along the outside edge.

I don't know how clear that explination was. I can draw a diagram if people want, but I'm lazy and don't feel like doing it if people get the idea.

I am a pretty radical liberal, but I don't want radical liberals in office. Just because I believe in something doesn't necessarily mean it would work. Does that make any sense at all?

Is anyone else the same way?
You mean you don't think all of your beliefs would work in today's soceity, or you think that your own beliefs are wrong (which makes no sense)?

I want vast change. I want to change our socialist, militaristic 'democracy' back to the laissez faire, limited government republic our Founders gave us.

And if you disagree, PLEASE DON'T FLAME!!!!!!!!!

Same here.

I want vast change. I want to change our socialist, militaristic 'democracy' back to the laissez faire, limited government republic our Founders gave us.

And if you disagree, PLEASE DON'T FLAME!!!!!!!!!
Same here.

The best part about this poll being public: You get to laugh at the peoploe who put themselves under "moderate", even though they sound fairly partisan.