I quit trying to pin any label on JB. He is his own ideology, whatever it is. He's consistent on any particular issue, but as soon as that changes, I never know which way he's going to head next. He's got more sides than a lump of coal. I'll argue with him when I feel like it, and leave him alone when I don't; but trying to figure him out makes my old head hurt.
Not that complicated, really.
JB is:
-A
logical positivist (by extension, I am an
agnostic atheist)
-A moderate to conservative
social democrat (new school- post the split with the democratic socialists)
-A
republican (not to be confused with
Republican)
-An adherent of the
social contract theory of organized society and the emergence of ethical norms
-A self-described
Austro-
Marxian (not to me confused with
AustroMarxist) (My understanding of the day-to day function of the marketplace is heavily drawn from the Austrian school, though there is definitely some neoKeynsian influence in my understanding of the need for certain market regulations and government actions; my understanding of human history can be said to be Marxist in that I believe we understand history best when we view it as the struggle between classes and ingroups for domination, control and resources)
-I am also an
abolitionist and
feminist- positions rooted in my belief that all should be treated equally before that law; I espouse a
meritocracy- this ties in closely with my social democratic views when it comes to matters of how to provide for the weakest and most helpless among ourselves
-I view the willful infliction of suffering to be morally abhorrent. I feel we've a moral obligation to eachother. The right to life is meaningless without the right to the means to sustain it. This is where the social safety net comes in. I feel that the same moral obligation demands we provide our children with the best opportunities and quality of life possible- including the best form. I feel that we have as much obligation to use the means available to us to give our children the best DNA possible as we do to give them the best food and medical care possible. Hence I am a
eugenicist and I embrace technological advances with the potential to end or reduce human suffering- so I am also a
transhumanist.
I suppose all of this can be summed up most simply as saying I believe we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and make the world a better place. To allow a man to die when you have the power to save him may not be as evil as actively killing him, but it is also evil. It is from this simple moral commandment- to make the world a better place and strive for a day when there is no human suffering- from which near all of my views ultimately flow.
Once one grasps that this principle lies at the heart of what compels my conscience, and also grasps my fundamental epistemological position, it's not all that hard to make a reasonable guess as to what my views are on any given matter.