I'll go one step further and say I don't like cramming people into labels like "liberal" or "conservative". Hell, here in Australia, one of our two major parties is called The Liberal Party, which despite it's name is actually the more conservative of the two... just to make things confusing.

But I suppose my views align more with 'social liberal' if labels are that important to you. I oppose any remnants of patriarchy, I don't value the well-being of people from other nations any more or less then that of my fellow countrymen, I think the various hangups society has about sex and sexuality make us look like a bunch of children afraid of cooties, and I feel like the wealthy are doing a bang-up job lately of keeping the various communities of the lower classes fighting among eachother as a way to distract them from the real reason there isn't enough to go around: because said wealthy upper class reeeaaally needed that sixteenth high-performance sports car to add to their collection, and your didn't really need that life-saving surgery anyway.

Communists don't strive for a utopia, because a utopia is specifically something that cannot exist. I don't understand the point of what you said? Automation and genetic engineering already exist, so what do you mean? Are insinuating that technological advancement is only possible under capitalism? Do you realize that we've had thousands of years of technological advancement before capitalism existed?

So, it sounds like you're either a social democrat or a socialist. Do you want to reform the current society, or completely replace it with a new one?

I consider myself a classical liberal. I support social liberalism, but I lean fiscal conservative. I support an open capitalist market though not in an anarchocapitalist sense. The government should act like a referee, making sure monopolies are broken up and punish companies that break the law. Freedom of speech is extremely important, though calls for acts of violence aren't acceptable. Be as offensive as you want, but don't go telling people to kill a group of people. Lastly, I'm pro-individualism and anti-collectivism. I dislike the identity politics of both the left and right.

Why would the government act like a referee, when they are the rich ones? The United States government was founded by rich slave-owners who wanted to protect their property and who wouldn't let women vote while also getting into wars with natives and forcing them out of their homelands.

I'm quite moderate, but from an American viewpoint I'd probably be rather socialistic.

Automation and genetic engineering aren't advanced enough though ... 

I thought communists did want a utopia though ... 

Imagine a world where we won't have to worry about shelter since we can get robots to make housing really cheapily, automated and genetic farming with cultured meat where the world doesn't have to worry anymore about famine, using genetic engineering to eradicate every pathogens ... 

That would be a dream world ... 

I am a common sense voter in that I vote for the most rational candidate or outcome.

I think the poll options should be changed to "Fiscal and Social Conservative, Fiscal and Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal, etc." We're only answering for half the equation as it stands currently, unless you choose the Libertarian or Moderate options.

Anyway, on topic, I'm pretty all over the place. I definitely lean libertarian on most issues, but on the areas that I disagree with libertarian thought, I disagree so drastically that I don't think I could ever realistically call myself libertarian (removing government from healthcare, for instance). Perhaps the easiest way to describe my viewpoint would be: keep the government out unless it stands to genuinely improve things in a way that cannot be accomplished otherwise.

Two things

First off, this seems like an argument that just winds up in a cycle of pure hopelessness. Essentially, the government cannot possibly be a referee because of (admittedly awful) things it has supported in the past. Any method of organizing society has some tragedy to its name, be it communism, dictatorships, pure democracy, or the more traditional representative democracy found in the West today. The US government has been responsible for plenty of tragedies before. That, however, is not sufficient reason to remove it from its position as "referee," at least not without a better alternative.

Secondly, while most elected officials are rich, it is worth noting that they receive their money from different organizations; some from large businesses who desire a monopoly, others from antitrust organizations who wish to prevent monopolies, so there is a balacing act to things. More importantly, though, most officials (at least in the United States) who are responsible for making decisions in regards to monopolies and business failures are forbidden by law to receive financial support from businesses and other outside organizations. Furthermore, they can be removed from office if their actions violate their mandate. Does this work perfectly? No; the sheer ridiculousness of Goldman Sachs' influence in the US government today demonstrates that the system certainly has flaws. With that said, I'll take a flawed referee to no referee at all.