After testing a few other options on the way, I ended up as a conservatively progressive internationalist free-market socialist in favour of limited democracy.
Now, ‘what the fuck does that mean?’, you might ask. Well, first of all, the internationalist part:
I see nations/countries as a temporarily necessary evil. Contrary to the communists of the past I don’t think it’s possible to form a single human society - at least not in the foreseeable future. However, I think people should keep uniting and removing at least the most staggering inequalities and the most pointless suffering - think food and meds for the poorest parts of Africa and the like. It’s kind of horrible when you realise how many lives you could save or better with the equivalent of a takeout pizza value. Also, I think preservation of environment stands above economic success of any country - because you need a place to live in before you go on to considering how affluent of a life this will be. As a result, I’m extremely against any forms of nationalism and skeptical towards any sort of patriotism.
Next, the free market socialist. I believe that free market with safeguards in place is the best solution for a lot of things, but fundamental social needs should be excluded from that. Most people prefer stuff like law enforcement and justice system to be like that. Many include health care and education in that too. Me, I’d start thinking whether some areas should be excluded like that but due to environment care - food production, power generation, waste management. And because nowadays there is no option to live outside of the society as there are nations and private lands everywhere on one hand and on the other the ability of the rich to stay rich or get richer depends heavily on mere existence of people to be supplied with goods and services - and also that the “worth” of each such person (also as an employee) is increased through public services like health care and education, the rich should pay higher tax and additionally they should pay unavoidable taxes on property owned (more important than income taxes really). And overall I’m for progressive taxation, but the prerequisite for that to work properly is doing away with tax havens.
Now, conservatively-progressive… I am for most of the stuff the left fights for, but I do not share their tendency to want to make major social changes within a decade. Things take time. People are born and raised in certain ways and sometimes turning things heads down might make more wrong than good - especially when the gains are not as immediate or groundbreaking as in the case of, say, abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote. I’m mostly referring to how people nowadays believe that it is possible within a lifetime not only to make people accept same sex relationships, but also the fact that instead of 2 sexes there are many genders, that its ok for chicks to have dicks and for guys not to have dicks and that a XY person looking like your average guy can simply identify as a female and everyone should go along with that. I don’t say these things are wrong, but they can’t be done quick and trying to do so might actually take things the other way, as readiness for such changes is strongly asymmetrical around the world and even within single countries. Also, I recognise the value of family not because religion told me to but because it’s basically the most basic and natural form of organisation, as it relies on what biology prepared us to do and feel. I get that some people are not born in line with this model and they should never be made to comply with it and should alternative forms of living, but a family is beneficial for society - also when it consists of two gay guys and their adopted son who thinks he will fare better as a girl. So, in short, my attitude is: do not rush some things, and people should live the way the feel the most comfortable (within their freedom not infringing the freedom of others), and it is also a good thing to keep some things cherished, especially when they got us through millions of years of evolutions as species while our culture is only about 10k years old.
And lastly - in favour of limited democracy. Well, this comes from my conviction that democracy as we know it no longer meet the purposes it was designed for. I mean, what is your vote worth if your opinion can be skewed and manipulated in thousand ways and you simply have no idea what really is happening to be able to check it, or simply the matter is too complicated for anyone but the most intelligent of us to grasp fully? (and even these people need all info to process which is not always the case). In my opinion democratic voting should become layered and decisions should be made by people who are closer to what happens and how it happens. So, say, people should choose their representatives for running their towns or city districts, and THESE people should choose higher tier people, because they will have a better contact and knowledge of who above is better suited for the job. That system would probably have its own pitfalls, but I’m looking forward to see it designed and tested, because if I’m sure of one thing is that if democracy is not fixed in some way, we will spiral back to dictatorship or some formy of oligarchy at best. Englightened, if we’re very lucky.
Also, I believe freedom is not a homogenous thing and some freedoms are quite priceless from my POV, but there are a lot of others that just have a price, and by price I mean whether keeping them is really better than relinquishing them in order to gain other, perhaps more important things. Thinking about that mostly in the context of climate change and the like, but also in terms of the freedom vs safety problem. I also believe that freedom must come with responsibility. Like, if you’re kill someone when drunk drivin or high on drugs, you should be judged more severely, because if you took those substances (in certain amount) you surely knew they will make you act in an unpredictable manner, and if you accepted the risk, you must accept the consequences of causing yourself to act like a living hazard. And that sort of things.
You can imagine where that puts my standing on many things but if someone wants to ask specifics, go ahead ;).