Recently I have been called a left winger, right winger, Liberal, etc, etc, etc. For any reason. So I did a little research, and to come to find out, there is not one I fully agree with. I may agree with ones philosophy, the other ideologies, another ones ideas, and another economic coordination, and disagree with others.
So what if you don't fully agree with any of them?
What would you be considered?
Is there a neutral?
Something in between, that agrees and disagrees with a little of each one?
Do you believe that Individuals and groups of Individuals should be free to self-organize and impose rules upon themselves so long as they don't force the same on other Individuals and other groups of Individuals?
Do you believe that Individuals and groups of Individuals should be held accountable for crimes they commit?
Do you believe that Individuals should be free to exchange in trade without restriction and that they should be honest in their dealings?
Do you believe that you have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit?
Do you believe that he fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise?
Do you believe that you should not initiate aggression against other people?
Do you believe that you should not steal or destroy others property?
Do you believe that you have the right to defend your life, freedom and property?
Do you believe that you are of Divine origin and that your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material?
Yea or Nay will suffice in response to each herein.
Now. Let's place those questions aside. You'd mentioned some other things...
First, there is no universal agreement on all of the issues. And there never will be. This is okay. One need only try to derive ideologically consistent positions on the many issues as best they can by applying logically core principles. This was the reason I asked you the previous questions. Those are good questions and reserving time to offer/decide your position on them is a great means of defining any core priciples with which you'll eventually need to define and make applicable when deriving consistent positions on any the issues as you educate yourself on them.
This can and will take time as you study the issues themselves and learn to filter out the logical fallacies. It requires a great deal of critical thinking on your part and nobody can do it except for you. Though, help is likely available in places where civil debate/discussion by wise people is routine.
Second. And this is important. Calling people names. All of thse things that you were called or labeled with were likely nothing more than amusing attempts at ad-hominem at your expense. It happens. Fukem.
When that tends to happen, it's reflective of 1 - someone's inability to understand the issue they're debating (most often the case), or 2 - an easy escape from making any such attempt, or 3 - a lack of any real interest in having functional discussion/debate inthe first place. Learn to avoid those people. In my short time here, I've read heaps of threads where some self-proclaimed ass kicker was bragginig about whipping up on some other person philosophically. Both from the left and the right. claims like these are generally laughable. Go through their postings and you'll quickly find that they lack an understanding of the issue themselves if you've taken the time to study and weed out the logical fallicies within any said issues.
Calling someone a name or giving them a label in such a regard only serves to demonstrate that they aren't actually interested in resolving differences. Resolving differences, however, is truly the point of civic engagement. And that's what you want to always strive toward, In short, be thoughtful and avoid seeking a "solution" that only addresses a superficial symptom of an unseen root cause issue. Remember that.
