This is the fifth in a series of polls to measure the demographics of the Beamdog community (I was just curious). The poll is anonymous by default, but you're welcome to discuss the issue publicly if you like.
The definition of these terms varies from country to country, so choose the option based on the term's meaning in your home country.
I love this poll @semiticgod. I wonder will anybody vote far left or far right. I have a feeling people will not generally believe they're on the extremes...
Considering how I've seen american ppl use the term "liberial" I feel hesitant to vote for it, since it's been diluted and corrupted from its true meaning.
@Skatan I'd say go for it, but also describe what that means in your country. We come from all over and I doubt there is any single term that crosses all borders intact.
I'm apolitical in the sense I have no party affiliation and am a total floating voter. I think it's probably also difficult for many people to describe themselves in the terms used in this poll because the meaning of each category is so hugely different depending on which country you're from.
I think it's actually a pity that parties have now become so dominant in many countries. That makes bipartisan cooperation more difficult and hinders finding a resolution of issues that don't split along party lines - Brexit is a good example of that in the UK at the moment.
I've added a line saying to pick your affiliation based on how the term is used in your home country. Thus, if liberal means something further to the left or right in your country, use that definition to decide if you fit the word.
Liberal. A true one, not the Western socialist left who had stolen our name. In other words, what they call today libertarian. Freedom and responsibility for every individual.
That said, as I grow older, I'm becoming more open towards conservative ideas.
Apolitical. Although I think the term "politically alienated" actually describes me more accurately. I don't feel like I belong to any political affiliaiton and I don't want to be. I don't feel like I can trust any politician and any political fraction. Furthermore, during my studies before I got my Master degree, I learned of two things. First, political biases and opinions are the hardest to change, even in face of reliable evidence which makes me think of how useless political debates are. Second, the empathy correlates negatively with feeling of power, which partially explains why politicians are such horrible human beings in general.
And while I don't want to have anything to do with politics, I know dealing with it is inevitable. Since I am aware than I can, even in minimal way but still, affect other people's lives by my decisions as citizen, I do vote. But in my instance, voting is less of a decision of "who is the best candidate" but rather "which testicle I want to be shot in first". So it's bad-worse kind of decision.
Apolitical. Although I think the term "politically alienated" actually describes me more accurately. I don't feel like I belong to any political affiliaiton and I don't want to be. I don't feel like I can trust any politician and any political fraction. Furthermore, during my studies before I got my Master degree, I learned of two things. First, political biases and opinions are the hardest to change, even in face of reliable evidence which makes me think of how useless political debates are. Second, the empathy correlates negatively with feeling of power, which partially explains why politicians are such horrible human beings in general.
And while I don't want to have anything to do with politics, I know dealing with it is inevitable. Since I am aware than I can, even in minimal way but still, affect other people's lives by my decisions as citizen, I do vote. But in my instance, voting is less of a decision of "who is the best candidate" but rather "which testicle I want to be shot in first". So it's bad-worse kind of decision.
If that had a radio button next to it, that's the one I would pick. In fact, I would like that printed on my voter registration card
I have my complaints about the left in my country (the US), but I don't take that as a reason not to identify as a liberal. I might not agree with the average liberal on every issue, but I don't have to. I already agree on most things--or at least, the issues I find most important (campaign finance reform) are the ones where I agree with other liberals (campaign finance reform is good). On issues where I disagree with the left, I either don't disagree very much or don't care about them as much (immigration).
I don't view politics as a "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing. I think there are legitimately good and conscientious people running for office, and it's our duty to keep them in power as a check against the corrupt and the dishonest. I don't expect a candidate to be everything I want in a politician--after all, I'm not the only voter with a say in the matter.
I think that outlook is healthier in the long run. Our response to the flaws in our government should be frustration and agitation rather than despair and resignation. In that sense, I think I agree a lot with @O_Bruce. Whatever our grievances with politics today, we need to stay engaged if we want things to change.
I decided to pick liberal here, though the definition of the term depends highly on the country and context it's used in. I don't like the use of political terms in the USA. In a european context, I would refer to myself as a left-leaning liberal. Though these things don't always go perfectly well together, I'm both in favor of the welfare state and an advocate of civil liberties (though I'm not sure that's the correct term for what I mean in the English language). I guess that in a US-context I could call myself a progressive, but with a certain amount of old-world liberal values not always found with american progressives.
I've been unaffiliated (independent I reckon here) for a long time now. I'm on nobody's side because pretty much nobody seems to be on my side when push comes to shove in the political arena. All promises and no real action of any subsequence, just arguing and false promises mostly from the folks in DC.
Gettin' mighty tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather get to choose between the greater of two goods for a change.
Canadian "small c" conservative. I believe in left leaning policies, however I think a conservative government that takes cost into consideration should run those policies.
I've been unaffiliated (independent I reckon here) for a long time now. I'm on nobody's side because pretty much nobody seems to be on my side when push comes to shove in the political arena. All promises and no real action of any subsequence, just arguing and false promises mostly from the folks in DC.
Gettin' mighty tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather get to choose between the greater of two goods for a change.
I see, the 'Treebeard' of politics! I can certainly sympathise...
I avoid dogmatic adherence to ideology as a philosophical principle, as I've too often seen people fall into tribal camps. When people zealously embrace ideologies they tend to shut their brains off, or at the very least limit their potential to learn and grow. I don't want to fall into that trap. I would probably be described as very left-leaning overall, but I don't always agree with the left and there are conservative ideals that appeal to me (such as the notion of personal responsibility). As an aside, I follow the scientific method - I seek the truth always, and not the confirmation of my biases. If there is evidence for something my views will change accordingly.
I don't like any of the political parties - partially because there aren't any that advocate for the type of economic system I'd like to see, and partially because of the self-serving corruption one sees in politicians of all stripes. There have been a few politicians I've actually believed in, but I usually vote for lesser evils.
I'm on nobody's side because pretty much nobody seems to be on my side when push comes to shove in the political arena.
True. I call myself a Democrat for policy reasons, but I don't owe the Democratic party any loyalties, because they have no particular loyalty to me. I think one of the reasons why a lot of people associate very strongly with one political party is because they consider it their group--Party X isn't just right; Party X is us. They then conflate their party's interests with their own personal interests. In reality, a political party has no particular loyalty to anyone, even its own constituents.
I don't know. I loathe politicians, they're horrible creatures that only seeks to make life worse or at least make sure it doesn't improve. Still, you have to vote for someone and here that means voting for the ones that are the least wrong/most correct rather than picking one single party that has all the solutions. Because none of them do.
Typically I vote for one of the more right-leaning parties. It's definitely one of the ones furthest to the "right". Again though, it's more about choosing the least bad alternative rather than a good one, since there really aren't any. The word "conservative" can't really be used I feel, because if any party's trying to conserve a lousy status quo while heaping additional fees, taxes and bureaucracy on top of everything, it's one of the left-leaning parties which have had too much power for too long.
I love this poll @semiticgod. I wonder will anybody vote far left or far right. I have a feeling people will not generally believe they're on the extremes...
In a survey, if ask to place myself on a left-right axis going from 1 (left) tot 10 (right) I always pick 1. There's not an inch of rightwingedness in me. I was the first to vote Far Left in this poll though (4%, 1 vote at the moment I post this).
I guess I am somewhere between "classical" and "social" liberalism. I haven't really studied it in depth, and my comment above might have been heavily influenced by reading and frequenting the wrong kind of forums. Thinking on it a bit more perhaps I was mistaken, or at the very least, only partially right. I actually don't know for sure what most americans consider a liberal, only what that portion of them who post their crap and hate on different forums does. So, with that said, I've voted Liberal now.
As I've grown older I've realized two things: 1: I have moved slightly further to the left, though I dislike how more far-left parties "steal" empathy, compassion etc and call them their own. It's perfectly possible to vote non-left and still be sympathetic for immigration, progressive views on sex/gender/abortion/whatever. 2: No democracy can survive without free media. Without a free media questioning politicans, forcing them to explain the shit they do, digging up corruption and getting bad ppl kicked out of office, you no longer have a democracy. A lot of media is just a massive can of turds, pushing their agenda and not being objective.
Politics always goes in waves, or cycles. We've been having such a great era now with the best freedom ever for a long time that ppl have grown complacent and don't understand that the the moment you stop fighting for that freedom, you lose it.
In the Netherlands we have 28 parties to vote for and always around 13 of then get seats in the parlement. It is always such a confusing time and the end result is an absolute compromise of at least three large parties for a near majority of one more seat than the opponents.
I guess it is safe to say that I have little positive view on politics when every four years (in the last two decades more like two or three) we get to vote again and the result is changing dramatically for each of the parties.
I know politics is important if done right. Even if many parties are small, they are apparently representative enough for a decent chunk in society to get a say in things. It just always seems so inefficient.
Anyway, my affiliation is towards everywhere in the spectrum, so whatever, I vote for a phenomenon called "green progressive" in the hopes that enough good (r)evolutions happen to help the planet.
Replied other. "What is your political affiliation" is the most difficult thread of all because of the constant flux of politics and that different cultures have different concepts of left and right. It's not even close. Also, many people from northern/anglo-saxon countries are notoriously uptight about their political allegiances. Others i.e. from southern/eastern europe care less because they view politics as an elaborate theater for the elites to pretend to debate about the issues while they and their families are bankrolled by entrenched monopolies.
Prepare for a wall-of-text, let me discuss some issues one-by-one:
Immigration:
has become the most hot-button issue as of today pretty much all over the western world. There are both economic and cultural reasons to be for/against immigration. In many parts of europe, people view immigration with scepticism that disrupts the "invisible glue" that forms the homogeneous ethnic nation state. Given the history of failed multi-ethnic states (i.e. Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, USSR, and even Switzerland during the 19th century), the scepticism is not unwarranted. Now imagine letting people in from completely different continents/cultures and the differences between the various neighboring european tribes seem trivial. Within a given society, the working class are most likely to insist on the "ethnic glue" as an identity because that's the most they have when they are becoming left behind in the automatisation trend. They are the first ones to turn towards the immigration sceptic populism we see throughout the western world today.
The situation in the new world (i.e. Canada & U.S.) is somewhat different, since these are settler countries and the "invisible glue" that binds together the settler tribes isn't as strong as in most parts of the world. The political and economic class are much more successful in selling the benefits of immigration and making the questioning of a generous migration a taboo topic until very recently. They stand to gain the most from migration because of economic reasons: a. to increase the size of the labor pool and b. to maintain the pension system without making the politically difficult decision to raise the retirement age. There are other benefits for them, including a new pool of voters for certain political parties (different in each country).
The mass migration we see today is a recent phenomenon because now everyone in Africa, Asia, and the middle-east have smartphones. I am generally against migration in most forms, with very few exceptions.
Healthcare:
It's a hot-button issue in the U.S. and parts of central europe where I come from but for different reasons. Countries such as Hungary have had a mass-exodus of doctors due to low pay and underinvestment in healthcare infrastructure while having an aging demographics. The quality of healthcare is very low for this reason. The U.S. in the meantime has a monopoly and malpractice lawsuit problem (read: 'defensive medicine'), which inflate the cost of healthcare so U.S. spends by far the most on healthcare in relation to its GDP. Neither private nor socialized healthcare will bring down the costs due to entrenched monopolies; the problem is very specific to the U.S. Some issues less specific to the U.S. is the increased awareness and demand towards higher-quality healthcare as well as the larger pool of older people (good thing: people don't die as young).
Climate Change:
It's better to be safe and minimize CO2 emissions, since there's no reload button for this planet. That being said, I see hydro- and nuclear energy as the least worst evil that is easily scalable at a low cost. Reneweable energy sources just can't be stored reliably, and practically all energy infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to account for the load swings in weather, sunlight, etc. There are issues with nuclear energy: large up-front cost, and the bad PR that it got (read: Chernobyl mismanagement), and the high cost of upgrading older generation reactors. In some countries such as Germany, it seems to have become a taboo to use nuclear energy. After turning off their nuclear reactors for the sake of environmentalism they now contribute more to climate change by substituting nuclear with coal and importing energy from neighboring countries. There's unfortunately a lot of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and denial around this issue that prevent real progress from being made.
Education:
The student loan burden in the U.S. is a complete disaster that is a culmination of several trends, some of which are present in other countries i.e. U.K. In most of history, a formal higher education was not necessary for the masses and was used primarily by the elite as a ticket into specially-prepared jobs. After WW2, it was decided to open up the doors of higher education to the masses with the "G.I. bill". There were plenty of jobs requiring higher education back then and few people had degrees as a % of the general population. Soon, higher education become a growth industry and new universities opened. Higher education became more and more as a product to be consumed with new frills and features. Soon it become a taboo to *not* go to the universities. As the proportion of the people with degrees increase so did the market value of the degrees they held decrease. It also gobbles up per-capita resources and the time spent to start a family (read: lower fertility rates). There's a monopoly issue here yet again; this time the higher education institutions are the monopoly for a career in the modern world. One way to solve this (I think) is to replace the degree system with required certifications/exams and then leave the university attendance optional. It's now easier than ever to self-educate than ever by watching Youtube videos, for instance. 99% of the population will still struggle to learn without help, so the option of going to live classes and seminars will never go away.
Guns:
A hot-button issue in the states that has become very politicized. There are countries with lots of gun control laws and few murders (i.e. Japan), minimal gun control laws and few murders (i.e. Czech Republic, various Balkan countries), lots of gun control laws and lots of murders (i.e. Brazil, Mexico), and minimal gun control laws and lots of murders (i.e. U.S.). There are certainly other issues that are very specific to the U.S. i.e. glamorization of using them on other people, mental health taboos, certain demographics that are overrepresented among the murderers and murdered, etc. Also, people living in the city have less need for them than those living in the rural areas. I don't think the gun control debate will ever be "solved" in the U.S. I'm agnostic about guns because I see a lot of other issues at work that neither political party in the U.S. really "understand" or wants to understand.
Same-sex marriage and non-binary gender rights:
Seems to be more and more accepted in western countries and occasionally in other parts of the world. I remember it being a hot button issue a decade ago and even Obama wasn't for it at a time. Now this seems something which is being more and more accepted by all sides, simply because unlike the other issues above, there are no adverse effects of having same-sex marriage onto other members of society. Rights to non-binary genders is a very complicated issue and affects a very small proportion of the population.
Legalization of Marijuana for recreational use:
As same-sex marriage, this doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on society. Apparently, alcohol is more harmful to the health than marijuana.
I had to vote 'Far Left' as none of the other options remotely describe my political affiliation at all. In Australia, the Liberal party are the right-wing conservatives.
By local standards, I am centre left, not far left.
I'm far left in the literal sense because I'm a radical anti-capitalist (for those interested, probably the strains of anti-capitalism I'm most sympathetic to are anarchism, specifically nihilist anarchism and anarcho-communism with a dash of green anarchism and anti-civilization anarchism...altho I'm critical of lots of those last two, as well as anti-authoritarian/anti-state left communist types of communism critical of/standing in opposition to state capitalist communist projects like the USSR, the PRC and the like, such as the ultra-left sections of the GPCR that the PRC brutally suppressed, left-libertarian communism, nihilist communism, council communism, communization theory, etc) although to be fair I take some things from what is called "post-left" anti-capitalism/anarchism and so I was tempted to pick Other...but really I'm not post-left qua post-left, just draw a bit from it and disagree with a lot of thinkers/writers within that particular political theory field.
I've been reading political theory since I was 12 or 13 (my Baby's First Leftist was Noam Chomsky but I consider him to be insufferably liberal these days lmao but at least he turned me onto folks like Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker who in turn led me into the wider world of political theory) and as it happens I wound up getting a Political Science degree in college (go figure lol) and...I'd talk about the direct action praxis component of my theoretical commitments, but even saying this much is frankly pretty bad security culture. I'll just say that my anti-poverty activism is one above-board thing I do that, frankly, doesn't go far enough (hence the below-board stuff LMFAO) and aside from that I don't see protests and marches and most forms of activism as actually useful or effective in any way (and more often than not are more effective at redirecting radical energies into easily dismissable or neutralizable forms of ""resistance"", the NGO-ization of resistance and all that) but I still attend because it's the radical anti-capitalist version of networking, you meet all kinds of awesome folks there just as frustrated as you that nothing electoral or peaceful or non-violent has ever made even the tiniest dent in what's killing us over the last few centuries to...make some tiny dents with so to speak.
I've spent a long time without posting in this thread, even though I voted almost as soon as it was open. I put "liberal".
I'm about as far left as the U.S. Green party. Perhaps slightly right of them, perhaps slightly left of them. They make a good benchmark for me because I agree 100% with what was the 2016 Green party platform.
In the context of American politics that probably makes me far left. In the world as a whole, it's just a liberal position.
I take the words of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution very seriously. Equality and liberty for ALL are natural RIGHTS, and we should effect those policies that promote them. I take satisfaction in knowing that (classic) liberalism is at the core of America's foundation.
I would probably consider myself a New Deal Democrat. I believe that a properly functioning, and non-corrupt government with significant, but not total authority has the best ability to implement the MAJOR challenges facing humanity. Addressing climate change and the anthropogenic effect on the environment is a very big and broad problem, far beyond "global warming". Deforestation, ocean pollution as well as acidification, desertification, global warming, all are serious issues that will be affecting millions. Solutions will not be cheap or small-scale.
I sorely distrust "the free market" and "the profit motive". Markets should be as free as possible, but all too often the profit motive boils down to "get mine first, fast as possible, and now I got mine, screw all ya'll."
People lament how "they don't make things like they used to". Obviously, because when you buy something that lasts for 20 years, you're out of the market for 20 years. Whereas if you have to buy something half the price that you have to replace 4 time as often, well, profits just went up 100%.
Likewise, there is no real interest in finding cures to chronic diseases, or orphan diseases (diseases that only a VERY few have, no more than a few thousand in the world). There's no money in spending tens of millions for something only a few dozen or hundred people need. And no money in curing the world of cancer. Or diabetes.
These are literal market failures straight out of an economics textbook.
i am a firm believer in what mahatma gandhi wrote about the impossibility of large societies to solve in a satisfactory way the problems that their dimensions create and to solve in a pacific way social conflicts. by the way i live in a small village and i am well aware about how conflicts can rise also in little societies...
i am talking of what gandhi wrote, not about how his teaching is often perceived by people and brought us by the mass media. usually people does not go further than reading his autobiography, if they even do it, there is much more to learn about his message to the humanity and to the way he showed us.
he told that he was sure that his way was the solution of the problems the humanity is facing in the modern era, but he told that probably 300 years are needed until that will happen, only 70 has passed now. at now his teaching is widely ignored or misunderstood, but the problems he outlined in a time when they was not so evident are becoming very apparent and constantly worsening, year after year.
semiticgod
Member, Moderator Posts: 14,301
Comments
I think it's actually a pity that parties have now become so dominant in many countries. That makes bipartisan cooperation more difficult and hinders finding a resolution of issues that don't split along party lines - Brexit is a good example of that in the UK at the moment.
That said, as I grow older, I'm becoming more open towards conservative ideas.
And while I don't want to have anything to do with politics, I know dealing with it is inevitable. Since I am aware than I can, even in minimal way but still, affect other people's lives by my decisions as citizen, I do vote. But in my instance, voting is less of a decision of "who is the best candidate" but rather "which testicle I want to be shot in first". So it's bad-worse kind of decision.
I don't view politics as a "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing. I think there are legitimately good and conscientious people running for office, and it's our duty to keep them in power as a check against the corrupt and the dishonest. I don't expect a candidate to be everything I want in a politician--after all, I'm not the only voter with a say in the matter.
I think that outlook is healthier in the long run. Our response to the flaws in our government should be frustration and agitation rather than despair and resignation. In that sense, I think I agree a lot with @O_Bruce. Whatever our grievances with politics today, we need to stay engaged if we want things to change.
Gettin' mighty tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather get to choose between the greater of two goods for a change.
I don't like any of the political parties - partially because there aren't any that advocate for the type of economic system I'd like to see, and partially because of the self-serving corruption one sees in politicians of all stripes. There have been a few politicians I've actually believed in, but I usually vote for lesser evils.
Typically I vote for one of the more right-leaning parties. It's definitely one of the ones furthest to the "right". Again though, it's more about choosing the least bad alternative rather than a good one, since there really aren't any. The word "conservative" can't really be used I feel, because if any party's trying to conserve a lousy status quo while heaping additional fees, taxes and bureaucracy on top of everything, it's one of the left-leaning parties which have had too much power for too long.
As I've grown older I've realized two things:
1: I have moved slightly further to the left, though I dislike how more far-left parties "steal" empathy, compassion etc and call them their own. It's perfectly possible to vote non-left and still be sympathetic for immigration, progressive views on sex/gender/abortion/whatever.
2: No democracy can survive without free media. Without a free media questioning politicans, forcing them to explain the shit they do, digging up corruption and getting bad ppl kicked out of office, you no longer have a democracy. A lot of media is just a massive can of turds, pushing their agenda and not being objective.
Politics always goes in waves, or cycles. We've been having such a great era now with the best freedom ever for a long time that ppl have grown complacent and don't understand that the the moment you stop fighting for that freedom, you lose it.
Bah, I feel bitter today. /rant.
I guess it is safe to say that I have little positive view on politics when every four years (in the last two decades more like two or three) we get to vote again and the result is changing dramatically for each of the parties.
I know politics is important if done right. Even if many parties are small, they are apparently representative enough for a decent chunk in society to get a say in things. It just always seems so inefficient.
Anyway, my affiliation is towards everywhere in the spectrum, so whatever, I vote for a phenomenon called "green progressive" in the hopes that enough good (r)evolutions happen to help the planet.
But yeah, I'm a socialist, as you probably guessed.
And I'm definitely of the opinion that Liberalism is firmly right wing.
Prepare for a wall-of-text, let me discuss some issues one-by-one:
Immigration:
has become the most hot-button issue as of today pretty much all over the western world. There are both economic and cultural reasons to be for/against immigration. In many parts of europe, people view immigration with scepticism that disrupts the "invisible glue" that forms the homogeneous ethnic nation state. Given the history of failed multi-ethnic states (i.e. Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, USSR, and even Switzerland during the 19th century), the scepticism is not unwarranted. Now imagine letting people in from completely different continents/cultures and the differences between the various neighboring european tribes seem trivial. Within a given society, the working class are most likely to insist on the "ethnic glue" as an identity because that's the most they have when they are becoming left behind in the automatisation trend. They are the first ones to turn towards the immigration sceptic populism we see throughout the western world today.
The situation in the new world (i.e. Canada & U.S.) is somewhat different, since these are settler countries and the "invisible glue" that binds together the settler tribes isn't as strong as in most parts of the world. The political and economic class are much more successful in selling the benefits of immigration and making the questioning of a generous migration a taboo topic until very recently. They stand to gain the most from migration because of economic reasons: a. to increase the size of the labor pool and b. to maintain the pension system without making the politically difficult decision to raise the retirement age. There are other benefits for them, including a new pool of voters for certain political parties (different in each country).
The mass migration we see today is a recent phenomenon because now everyone in Africa, Asia, and the middle-east have smartphones. I am generally against migration in most forms, with very few exceptions.
Healthcare:
It's a hot-button issue in the U.S. and parts of central europe where I come from but for different reasons. Countries such as Hungary have had a mass-exodus of doctors due to low pay and underinvestment in healthcare infrastructure while having an aging demographics. The quality of healthcare is very low for this reason. The U.S. in the meantime has a monopoly and malpractice lawsuit problem (read: 'defensive medicine'), which inflate the cost of healthcare so U.S. spends by far the most on healthcare in relation to its GDP. Neither private nor socialized healthcare will bring down the costs due to entrenched monopolies; the problem is very specific to the U.S. Some issues less specific to the U.S. is the increased awareness and demand towards higher-quality healthcare as well as the larger pool of older people (good thing: people don't die as young).
Climate Change:
It's better to be safe and minimize CO2 emissions, since there's no reload button for this planet. That being said, I see hydro- and nuclear energy as the least worst evil that is easily scalable at a low cost. Reneweable energy sources just can't be stored reliably, and practically all energy infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to account for the load swings in weather, sunlight, etc. There are issues with nuclear energy: large up-front cost, and the bad PR that it got (read: Chernobyl mismanagement), and the high cost of upgrading older generation reactors. In some countries such as Germany, it seems to have become a taboo to use nuclear energy. After turning off their nuclear reactors for the sake of environmentalism they now contribute more to climate change by substituting nuclear with coal and importing energy from neighboring countries. There's unfortunately a lot of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and denial around this issue that prevent real progress from being made.
Education:
The student loan burden in the U.S. is a complete disaster that is a culmination of several trends, some of which are present in other countries i.e. U.K. In most of history, a formal higher education was not necessary for the masses and was used primarily by the elite as a ticket into specially-prepared jobs. After WW2, it was decided to open up the doors of higher education to the masses with the "G.I. bill". There were plenty of jobs requiring higher education back then and few people had degrees as a % of the general population. Soon, higher education become a growth industry and new universities opened. Higher education became more and more as a product to be consumed with new frills and features. Soon it become a taboo to *not* go to the universities. As the proportion of the people with degrees increase so did the market value of the degrees they held decrease. It also gobbles up per-capita resources and the time spent to start a family (read: lower fertility rates). There's a monopoly issue here yet again; this time the higher education institutions are the monopoly for a career in the modern world. One way to solve this (I think) is to replace the degree system with required certifications/exams and then leave the university attendance optional. It's now easier than ever to self-educate than ever by watching Youtube videos, for instance. 99% of the population will still struggle to learn without help, so the option of going to live classes and seminars will never go away.
Guns:
A hot-button issue in the states that has become very politicized. There are countries with lots of gun control laws and few murders (i.e. Japan), minimal gun control laws and few murders (i.e. Czech Republic, various Balkan countries), lots of gun control laws and lots of murders (i.e. Brazil, Mexico), and minimal gun control laws and lots of murders (i.e. U.S.). There are certainly other issues that are very specific to the U.S. i.e. glamorization of using them on other people, mental health taboos, certain demographics that are overrepresented among the murderers and murdered, etc. Also, people living in the city have less need for them than those living in the rural areas. I don't think the gun control debate will ever be "solved" in the U.S. I'm agnostic about guns because I see a lot of other issues at work that neither political party in the U.S. really "understand" or wants to understand.
Same-sex marriage and non-binary gender rights:
Seems to be more and more accepted in western countries and occasionally in other parts of the world. I remember it being a hot button issue a decade ago and even Obama wasn't for it at a time. Now this seems something which is being more and more accepted by all sides, simply because unlike the other issues above, there are no adverse effects of having same-sex marriage onto other members of society. Rights to non-binary genders is a very complicated issue and affects a very small proportion of the population.
Legalization of Marijuana for recreational use:
As same-sex marriage, this doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on society. Apparently, alcohol is more harmful to the health than marijuana.
By local standards, I am centre left, not far left.
I've been reading political theory since I was 12 or 13 (my Baby's First Leftist was Noam Chomsky but I consider him to be insufferably liberal these days lmao but at least he turned me onto folks like Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker who in turn led me into the wider world of political theory) and as it happens I wound up getting a Political Science degree in college (go figure lol) and...I'd talk about the direct action praxis component of my theoretical commitments, but even saying this much is frankly pretty bad security culture. I'll just say that my anti-poverty activism is one above-board thing I do that, frankly, doesn't go far enough (hence the below-board stuff LMFAO) and aside from that I don't see protests and marches and most forms of activism as actually useful or effective in any way (and more often than not are more effective at redirecting radical energies into easily dismissable or neutralizable forms of ""resistance"", the NGO-ization of resistance and all that) but I still attend because it's the radical anti-capitalist version of networking, you meet all kinds of awesome folks there just as frustrated as you that nothing electoral or peaceful or non-violent has ever made even the tiniest dent in what's killing us over the last few centuries to...make some tiny dents with so to speak.
I'm about as far left as the U.S. Green party. Perhaps slightly right of them, perhaps slightly left of them. They make a good benchmark for me because I agree 100% with what was the 2016 Green party platform.
In the context of American politics that probably makes me far left. In the world as a whole, it's just a liberal position.
I take the words of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution very seriously. Equality and liberty for ALL are natural RIGHTS, and we should effect those policies that promote them. I take satisfaction in knowing that (classic) liberalism is at the core of America's foundation.
I would probably consider myself a New Deal Democrat. I believe that a properly functioning, and non-corrupt government with significant, but not total authority has the best ability to implement the MAJOR challenges facing humanity. Addressing climate change and the anthropogenic effect on the environment is a very big and broad problem, far beyond "global warming". Deforestation, ocean pollution as well as acidification, desertification, global warming, all are serious issues that will be affecting millions. Solutions will not be cheap or small-scale.
I sorely distrust "the free market" and "the profit motive". Markets should be as free as possible, but all too often the profit motive boils down to "get mine first, fast as possible, and now I got mine, screw all ya'll."
People lament how "they don't make things like they used to". Obviously, because when you buy something that lasts for 20 years, you're out of the market for 20 years. Whereas if you have to buy something half the price that you have to replace 4 time as often, well, profits just went up 100%.
Likewise, there is no real interest in finding cures to chronic diseases, or orphan diseases (diseases that only a VERY few have, no more than a few thousand in the world). There's no money in spending tens of millions for something only a few dozen or hundred people need. And no money in curing the world of cancer. Or diabetes.
These are literal market failures straight out of an economics textbook.
by the way i live in a small village and i am well aware about how conflicts can rise also in little societies...
i am talking of what gandhi wrote, not about how his teaching is often perceived by people and brought us by the mass media. usually people does not go further than reading his autobiography, if they even do it, there is much more to learn about his message to the humanity and to the way he showed us.
he told that he was sure that his way was the solution of the problems the humanity is facing in the modern era, but he told that probably 300 years are needed until that will happen, only 70 has passed now. at now his teaching is widely ignored or misunderstood, but the problems he outlined in a time when they was not so evident are becoming very apparent and constantly worsening, year after year.