NationStates Jolt Archive

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.
Don't feel bad. I've been accused of much the same thing. Just ignore them; they're in the habit of labelling people and wouldn't know how to act if someone didn't fit their preconcieved ideas.

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.

Hmmm... guessing that you're debating with a lot of socialists? I'm sure it also depends on how extreme you are with some of your answers.

Forget about labels. Stick up for what you believe in, regardless of what 'group' people want to peg you into.

those aren't technically all that contradictory...

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.

Its simple. If someone agrees with you, you are a great intellectual. If you dare to voice a different opinion, you are a blight on humanity who must be removed from the gene pool for the good of mankind.

I've been called a warmonger and a tree hugging hippies in the same thread before. I'm still baffled how.

I'm still baffled how.

It's OK. The only reason that you're baffled is because you are a blight on humanity who must be removed from the gene pool for the good of mankind.

Let's see. I've been called left-wing and a NAZI, neither of which I am.

It's OK. The only reason that you're baffled is because you are a blight on humanity who must be removed from the gene pool for the good of mankind.

yes, that thought did cross my mind, and other peoples as well I'm sure.

those aren't technically all that contradictory...

...

Yes they are.


Neoliberalism is generally mulitlateral in philosophy: IE, using organizations like IMF, WTO, UN, NAFTA, etc. See: Joesph Nye.

Neoconservatism allows unilateralism. See: Niall Ferguson.

Neolibertarianism is contrary to both, because neoconservatism and neoliberalism both allow for 'big government' and such, while neolibertarianism is simply a small, but powerful government focused on defense and security.

...
See: Niall Ferguson.

erk... *delivers a hefty smack to Niall Ferguson's face*

erk... *delivers a hefty smack to Niall Ferguson's face*

Oh, come off it. He isn't that bad when he isn't talking about Iraq... I thought The Pity of War and the Rothschild histories were very good...

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.

You're a "neo-gets-in-arguments-with-infantile-socialists". Screw them. Labels are usually bullshit anyway. Just argue whatever your position is on a given issue, and if they have to resort to name-calling, bask in the fact that you've won.

I've been called a crazy liberal and a rabid anarchocapitalist in the same morning, though.

It is the new style of arguing. If you disagree with somone then they accuse you of something that makes you look bad in other peoples eyes.

Example: If I were to say that I disagreed with the war in Iraq I am anti-troops and unpatriotic

Neither of which is true but you no longer have to listen to the reason behind my arguments and are free to view my as "not a True American"

When I spoke out against the NSA spying I was also attacked as being unpatriotic. When I pointed out that the President and all serving and past servicemen took an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION. My arguments are dismissed as left wing liberal (and of course as helping the terrorists).

Oh, come off it. He isn't that bad when he isn't talking about Iraq... I thought The Pity of War and the Rothschild histories were very good...

Ah, well, seeing as I havent read those, and I have mostly seen him talking about Iraq... then I can admit I may have just seen his worst side.

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?.

Does it really matter to you what people think of you or what labels they want to attach to you? Fuck them.




Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.

Contradictory political labels? What does that even mean?

I think it is impossible to be entirely conservative or entirely liberal on ALL issues. The world is much more complex, not everything is black and white. Only the most ignorant knuckle-draggers think this way.

You're a "neo-gets-in-arguments-with-infantile-socialists". Screw them. Labels are usually bullshit anyway. Just argue whatever your position is on a given issue, and if they have to resort to name-calling, bask in the fact that you've won.

I've been called a crazy liberal and a rabid anarchocapitalist in the same morning, though.

Well, technically, if they meant crazy (classical) liberal, they'd be right... :P

Personally I'm quite sad nobody remembers that the original liberal philosophy was smaller government...

...

Yes they are.


Neoliberalism is generally mulitlateral in philosophy: IE, using organizations like IMF, WTO, UN, NAFTA, etc. See: Joesph Nye.

Neoconservatism allows unilateralism. See: Niall Ferguson.

Neolibertarianism is contrary to both, because neoconservatism and neoliberalism both allow for 'big government' and such, while neolibertarianism is simply a small, but powerful government focused on defense and security.

neoliberalism and neoconservatism don't really cover the same areas of government action. and neolibertarianism is utter bullshit that roughly means "somebody who isn't a libertarian (or is very deeply confused about major aspects of the ideology) but still likes to call themselves one"

neoliberalism and neoconservatism don't really cover the same areas of government action. and neolibertarianism is utter bullshit that roughly means "somebody who isn't a libertarian (or is very deeply confused about major aspects of the ideology) but still likes to call themselves one"

1) Yes they do. Both Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism are schools of foreign policy, primarily. They cover the EXACT same areas of government action. Unless of course you're using the pejorative, over-generalized economic label, which I am not referring to directly.

2) Of course a neolibertarian isn't the same as a paleolibertarian. You could easily say the same thing about Conservative policy and Neocon policy. Totally different.

Unless of course you're using the pejorative, over-generalized economic label, which I am not referring to directly.

"In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being..."

i don't think your accusers care what you are referring to.

"In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being..."

i don't think your accusers care what you are referring to.

I'm not arguing about what they said. I'm arguing about YOUR claim that neoliberalism and neoconservatism are non-contradictory.

I'm not arguing about what they said. I'm arguing about YOUR claim that neoliberalism and neoconservatism are non-contradictory.

they aren't. if i were to call someone a neoliberal, i would mean by this that they support the global free marketeering (at least for poor people) program pushed largely by former imperialists on to the former colonies. if i were to call someone a neoconservative, i would mean by this that they support a hawkish foreign policy when they don't get their way.

call it the iron fist behind the invisible hand.

they aren't. if i were to call someone a neoliberal, i would mean by this that they support the global free marketeering (at least for poor people) program pushed largely by former imperialists on to the former colonies. if i were to call someone a neoconservative, i would mean by this that they support a hawkish foreign policy when they don't get their way.

call it the iron fist behind the invisible hand.

See, that's where you're wrong. Twice. Neoliberalism is NOT the same thing as globalism, though most neoliberals are also globalists.

Neoliberalism in trade and foreign policy advocates multilateral solutions to economic and military problems. It does not advocate the use of unilateral force, preemptive invasion, or launching military conflicts to implement democracy by force, as a neoconservative would.

They're completely different schools of foreign policy, no matter what Noam Chomsky says.

They're completely different schools of foreign policy, no matter what Noam Chomsky says.

but you acknowledge that a widely influencial figure like chomsky does use the terms in a way that renders them not exactly contradictory, right?

In debate on and off NS, I've been accused of being, depending on the topic...

A. A rabid neoliberal (On trade/foreign policy)
B. A heartless neoconservative (On foreign policy at times)
C. A greedy neolibertarian (Most often on domestic issues)

So... What the hell am I? Is there any political definition that can encompass what I supposedly am?

Also, I'd like to hear of anyone being slammed with contradictory political labels... Always kind of interesting.
Most people who fling around labels don't really understand the issues, ignore them.

If you don't know your political stance, you should go to politicalcompass.com. Its a two-dimensional chart instead of the woefully inadequate right-left line most of us are used to.

but you acknowledge that a widely influencial figure like chomsky does use the terms in a way that renders them not exactly contradictory, right?

Yes, but George Bush is a widely influential figure and he says a lot of things that would otherwise be contradictory?

Does having a famous person make it correct?

As for the political compass, it puts me as a semilibertarian, yet I have views on many policies like education and foreign policy that most libertarians would not agree with.

As has been demonstrated in this thread, a lot of people don't have a clear grasp of what many labels actually mean (I certainly can't get much farther than "liberal," "conservative," and "libertarian.")
Plus most labels suck because they all end up getting stuck in as either basically Republican or basically Democratic. And when a libertarian ends up being stuck in the same basic category as the Bible Belt, you know there's a problem.

The Political Compass is interesting but incomplete, if you ask me. Among other things it assumes that what I believe to be moral I also believe should be law.

And out of random curiosity, does anybody know what you should lable somebody who believes in "socialism" (by which I mean a European welfare state) who is anti-abortion, thinks that marriage is purely a legal method of giving one person certain rights with respect to another that is pretty much independent of gender, and thinks that the current interpretation of the US Constitution is becoming anti-religion rather than promoting separation of religion and state? Because I'm tired of calling myself a liberal to distance myself from Dubya.

And out of random curiosity, does anybody know what you should lable somebody who believes in "socialism" (by which I mean a European welfare state) who is anti-abortion, thinks that marriage is purely a legal method of giving one person certain rights with respect to another that is pretty much independent of gender, and thinks that the current interpretation of the US Constitution is becoming anti-religion rather than promoting separation of religion and state? Because I'm tired of calling myself a liberal to distance myself from Dubya.

Hmm . . . Socialism is strongly "liberal." The anti-abortion stance suggests you believe in morality, generally conservative, though the marriage stance conflicts with this. The last thing seems to be conservative, but anyone who is not a kneejerker can see that it is true, and the end of the statement suggests that you believe in a seperation of church and state, which is generally associated with liberalism, though anyone can believe in it as it is not a very strongly liberal thing.

I would have to say you are somewhat moderate but way more left-leaning than right.

Just a vague interpretation, though.

EDIT: One more remark, though. About the libertarian being stuck in with the bible belt thing. After some examination of the various groups, I have found that I would be the closest to libertarian. However, I am strongly Christian. Is there some reason that this would conflict?

The Political Compass is interesting but incomplete, if you ask me. Among other things it assumes that what I believe to be moral I also believe should be law.

Thank you for noticing that! I had the same problem. That is why I put more trust into the OKCupid one, though it isn't perfect either.

Hmm . . . Socialism is strongly "liberal." The anti-abortion stance suggests you believe in morality, generally conservative, though the marriage stance conflicts with this. The last thing seems to be conservative, but anyone who is not a kneejerker can see that it is true, and the end of the statement suggests that you believe in a seperation of church and state, which is generally associated with liberalism, though anyone can believe in it as it is not a very strongly liberal thing.

I would have to say you are somewhat moderate but way more left-leaning than right.

Just a vague interpretation, though.

EDIT: One more remark, though. About the libertarian being stuck in with the bible belt thing. After some examination of the various groups, I have found that I would be the closest to libertarian. However, I am strongly Christian. Is there some reason that this would conflict?

You can be Christian and still be Libertarian, the idea being that you don't enforce your beliefs on others.

EDIT: One more remark, though. About the libertarian being stuck in with the bible belt thing. After some examination of the various groups, I have found that I would be the closest to libertarian. However, I am strongly Christian. Is there some reason that this would conflict?
Well, among other things my interpretation of libertarianism would be (in lterms of legality) pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-letting Terry Schiavo's husband take her off life support. The Bible Belt (by which I mean such groups as the Christian Coalition and followers of Pat Robertson) would seem to want those things outlawed (by "seem" I of course mean that certain of their leaders have publicly called for prayer asking that members of the Supreme Court die so they become illegal).

Well, among other things my interpretation of libertarianism would be (in lterms of legality) pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-letting Terry Schiavo's husband take her off life support. The Bible Belt (by which I mean such groups as the Christian Coalition and followers of Pat Robertson) would seem to want those things outlawed (by "seem" I of course mean that certain of their leaders have publicly called for prayer asking that members of the Supreme Court die so they become illegal).

Well, my general belief is: "Do whatever the hell you want with yourself and other consenting adults, just don't expect me (or, in the furture, my family) to pay for it and/or recognize it as good/moral/legitimate."

That seems libertarian, but it opposes abortion (if you consider the baby a person who is not a consenting adult), opposes gay marriage, and is really iffy about the Terry Schiavo thing (considering the rest of her family wanted her alive). So, how would I fit into that?

I don't think anybody who opposes granting gays the legal benefits of gay marriage can call themselves libertarian.
Likewise, whether or not you thought Terry Schiavo was still alive, there are already laws governing such cases and so if you thought Congress should have intervened...not libertarian. Which is not to say that you didn't think her family had the right to fight about it (I'm not entirely clear on the legal basis for each side).
I suppose your argument on abortion kind of makes sense. But it doesn't fit into any established framework I've ever seen...
So, not libertarian.

I don't think anybody who opposes granting gays the legal benefits of gay marriage can call themselves libertarian.
Likewise, whether or not you thought Terry Schiavo was still alive, there are already laws governing such cases and so if you thought Congress should have intervened...not libertarian. Which is not to say that you didn't think her family had the right to fight about it (I'm not entirely clear on the legal basis for each side).
I suppose your argument on abortion kind of makes sense. But it doesn't fit into any established framework I've ever seen...
So, not libertarian.

Thank you.

(Note: I am not clear on the issue of Schiavo either, which is why I said iffy. If there was already specific laws governing such cases, I would definately go with them)

(Also Note: I said I was against the marriage itself, not the rights. Aren't there "civil unions" that give them the rights of marriage without making a mockery of the institution?)

Yes, but George Bush is a widely influential figure and he says a lot of things that would otherwise be contradictory?

Does having a famous person make it correct?

not necessarily. but it might demonstrate common or widespread usage, which could.

not necessarily. but it might demonstrate common or widespread usage, which could.

According to widespread usage in the US, liberal is a pejorative term.

And when I see that usage of neoliberal become common or widespread among the people who describe themselves as them, encyclopedias and most of academia and politicians, and not just the ultra-leftists like Chavez and Chomsky, then you can talk.