Political Ideology
Neoliberalism is the modern "nanny state" (such as the UK, most European countries, Oz, Canada and whatnot).
I do not think that is the common definition. As far as I know, neoliberalism is an economic philosophy, advocating deregulation, free markets, free trade, globalisation and privatisation. Sounds like the opposite of a "nanny state".
I voted for minarchist.
I think government regulations should be minimal. I think that war spending needs to be cut everywhere.
I do believe that there should be a social fund or several social funds. A fund to assist with medical costs, psychiatric costs, and a disaster relief fund. I also think that these should be real funds, not like how most America welfare services are run.
There shouldn't be a sales tax on essential items. There shouldn't be a tax on food, water, and some types of shelters. I might include electricity here for the modern world.
I don't like income tax either.
My ideological viewpoints can be expounded by the following:
? Classical Liberalism
? Constitutional Minarchism
? Conservatarian Populism
? Propertarianism
? Hardcore Euroscepticism
? Cultural Libertarianism (NOT progressivism)
? Anti-Federalism (US)
? Non-Interventionism
? Right Wing Populism
? Secular Libertarian-Conservatism
? Anti-Mass Immigration
? Anti-Socialism
? Anti-Feminism
? Anti-Egalitarian Multiculturalism
? Anti-Cultural Marxism
? Anti-Radical Libertinism/Political Correctness/Nanny Statism
? Anti-Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism
? Anti-Corporatism
? Anti-Anarchism
? Anti-Eco-fascism
May I ask what you mean when you say you are a classic liberal, minarchist and libertarian-conservative, but opposed to neoliberalism? What elements of neoliberalism are you opposed?
It ostensibly relies on the continuance of radical government spending in cooperation with the military industrial complex, crony capitalists and other corporatist dictatorships (they depend on corporate welfare and other economic interventions from the state to retain their presence in the market ), which is contrarian to it's objective of "absence of government intercession" in the economy. It is a form of crony corporate quasi-capitalist statism masquerading as "free enterprise" and "free market capitalism" and it certainly isn't in any shape or form of infinitesimal resemblance to the founding father's classical liberalism (it's antithetical to many of it's contentions as it seems more comparative with neoconservatism, which is vehemently opposed by many libertarians and paleoconservatives like myself included). Neoliberal admirers like the traitorous Alan Greenspan spuriously believe it can subjugated by national banking (e.g. Federal Reserve System) and the multinational cartels which the truly free market is in no way of approbation for by any standard. That's my precisional definition of this vituperative philosophy where it's actual denoted meaning that has been so elusive to an exorbitant amount of misguided Keynesians, anti-capitalist marxists and social "scientists." Through my contemplations the neoliberal doctrine is pretty much equivalent to that of the neoconservative pseudo-libertarian diatribes purported by Reaganomics and Thatcherism, when in much certitude actually amplified the state with burdensome taxation (e.g. Ronald Reagan upsurged the Federal Government by developing ineffectual new departments which requires a lot of expenditure from the tax payer) instead of downsizing it. During their premierships they adopted more fiscally liberal policies such as the war on drugs, and substantial incrementation in militarization spending, which emphasizes an strident Keynesian aspect of neoconservatism. All of this and many other things that I wouldn't bother elaborating about obscures their objective towards a truly prosperous free market.
_________________
Diagnosed with "Classical" Asperger's syndrome in 1998 (Clinical psychologist).
RAADS-R: 237/240
Aspie score: 199 out of 200
Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 1 out of 200
Alexithymia Questionnaire: 166/185 AQ: 49/50 EQ: 9/80
Last edited by TheRedPedant93 on 26 Sep 2014, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
luanqibazao
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner
I've never actually heard of anyone self identifying as neo-liberal, only people opposed to it, whatever it is, and so think of it as a sort of tabula rasa pejorative rather than an actual ideology.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
I'm social democrat.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies
"Essential services" can refer to education, public transport, health insurance, welfare, water, electricity, and so on. In fact, the truth is that most government systems which self-identify as capitalist are also social-democratic in some way or another, with most services above nationalized: even the USA, which is infamously wary of socialism as a nation, has such programs as Medicare (nationalized health insurance for citizens over 65) and so on.
In terms of influence outside general Marxism, Social Democracy tends to draw heavily from the Enlightenment. Social Democratic parties tend to push the platform of secularism, progress and a technocratic/democratic approach to governing more so than other political parties in nations they are found in (thus making it Enlightenment liberalism turned Up to Eleven).
It seem to be the most popular option in the poll, though I guess it might more reflect the positions of those who responded in 2011.
I've never actually heard of anyone self identifying as neo-liberal, only people opposed to it, whatever it is, and so think of it as a sort of tabula rasa pejorative rather than an actual ideology.
I think you could be onto something with the neo-liberalism not being a real ideology, thing.
I wonder if "neo-liberalism" was a facade that was cynically adopted to provide justificatory armour for horrible things that were done for horrible reasons. I also strongly suspect that different labels are often applied to "business as usual" to prevent the public to be able to figure out what is really going on in government and why. Certainly, using the same vocabulary to describe opposites makes it harder for people to talk intelligibly.