Another liberal/progressive libertarian checking in.
????????????????????????????????????
I'm confused. Please explain that mix of philosophies.
Here's an observation to add to the discussion. Most (maybe all) political ideologies seem to split on the issue of using government force to achieve a desired goal. The goal can be decided on by a vote(democracy). Committee(oligarcy,theocracy) or one person(monarchy, dictatorship) but the decision will be backed up by force, and the use will be deemed proper by everyone involved, except the folks doing the suffering.
The other side of the divide is based on peaceful cooperation and persusation(democracy, sometimes). This type of govt doesn't seem to be very popular with us humans.
Here's how I see it in terms of today's definations.
Peaceful.
Anarchists
Arachno-capitalists
libertarians
classical liberals(this has mostly morphed into libertarianism)
paleo-conservatives(mostly)
Libertarians
Force is okey dokey.
Modern liberals
neo-conservatives
modern conservatives(mostly)
authoritarians who don't seem to fit anywhere else
Democrats
Republicans
I put the party faithful of both major parties separate from other ideologies because most of them don't seem able to think for themselves. Whatever the party leadership says they parrot back.
The list isn't all inclusive and if you feel insulted that I left your ideology off please feel free to come up with your own list and insult me.
Do you really think americans are the only ones who diserve to live free?
No. Our differences aren't over the goals, the differences are over methods. You can't force people to be free at bayonet point. There defination of freedom may be very different than ours. If the Iraqies vote in a Shia based fundamentalist theocracy will you be in favor of overthrowing the election? Are you in favor of stopping or rigging the election so that can't happen?
The current method is basically taking a very short term approach to the atrocities that Saddam (and others) were engaging in. We won't know for many years if we have made things better for the Iraqi people. A dead child is a dead child whether killed by Saddam or as "collateral damage" by us. How many civilians have we killed and how many enemies for the next 5 generations have we created? Sometimes war and killing is necessary but the beneficial long term consequences have to outweigh the short term benefits. I don't think that test was met in Iraq.