Respectfully, but isn't this is just more labels to reconcile the gap between limited government and total anarchy, and an attempt to pigeonhole people like Ron Paul?
...
Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal?
Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology?
...
Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal?
Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology?
I have no problem with describing Ron Paul as a libertarian. If you have a complex ideology fine, what I don't like is when people join a discussion and say: "I'm not part of any ideology I have my own views".
Yes you have your own views but that doesn't make them unique. They are still part of ideology, it doesn't matter how complex it is.
I have yet to see a opinion or a political view in this thread, that we cannot place in a ideology.
Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian.
Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)?
Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.
The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate.
Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties.
You should not let yourself be boxed by labels.
The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team.
How would you reconcile this theory in comparing the pro-market, limited government American right wing and Europe's populist, nationalist and pro social welfare right wing?
It can't work both ways, right?
It can't work both ways, right?
The difference is still the tradition of social democracy in Europe. The right wing in Europe wants to keep the welfare state but they also want lower taxes.
It would be political suicide for any party in Europe to try to end the welfare state.
You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude.
The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum.
If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies?
Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States?
Lincoln's Homestead Act. Little House on the Prairie, anyone?
The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today.
And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory.
Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers.
that's atleast what I feel about my ideology. 