Heads up: This is going to be a long OP. If you feel like reading further, that's good, and I'd be glad about that. If you don't, that's fine too. I understand. 
Also, if you read only a part of the OP or don't feel like continuing before commenting, that's also fine with me as long as the comments stick to the topic.
So, I guess this is similar to the "What religion do my beliefs match?" threads, except that this one is about politics instead. It's not that I'm eager to label myself; I'm just wondering where my views would fit so that I could look up posts, articles, etc., by others who share similar views without having to go through ten articles I disagree with before finding one I agree with.
Since I can't accurately describe myself using any of the labels I currently know (e.g., liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.), I'm posting this to ask which ideological label, if any, best describes these views.
These are some of my views (in no particular order), and I'm stating them strictly as my personal views—and please note that these are general, summarized views that can differ to varying extents according to different contexts:
• Modern-day conservatism has considerable amounts of bigotry, irrationality, and harmful beliefs that encourage, among other things, war and supporting oppression, be it domestically or abroad. Modern-day liberalism has considerable amounts of excessive political correctness, dangerous moral and cultural relativism, tolerance of harmful beliefs (especially religious ones), and almost dogmatic views of what constitutes "freedom" and "tolerance."
I think liberals generally have it right concerning most social issues, and conservatives have a lot of things right concerning the flaws of cultures other than their own. For instance, I have actually seen very reasonable criticism of racism in the U.S. from some Islamists and religious as well as political conservatives in Egypt. Likewise, I have seen very reasonable criticism of Muslim culture from some American and European conservatives.
Generally, I believe that if one were to collect some of the criticism of conservatism in different cultures put forth by conservatives in other cultures, one could end up with a very rational collection of critiques of conservatism everywhere. One of the main reasons for this is that conservatives generally don't hold back on criticizing other cultures and religions on the grounds of political correctness and/or moral or cultural relativism, unlike a lot of liberals.
• I think that pacifism is, in many cases, so idealistic as to be impractical and sometimes even dangerous. For some examples, it took two atomic bombs to help end World War II, bin Laden didn't stop engaging in terrorism until he was assassinated, and ISIS is metastasizing and being so brutal right now that any countries' pacifism toward them would basically amount to surrendering to them.
In other words, "violence solves nothing" is a utopian mantra that can be almost completely unhelpful in real-world global politics. I think that countries should only eschew violence when it is unnecessary, not categorically.
• Morality is objective and should be based on maximizing and maintaining the well-being of conscious creatures, primarily humans but also including other animals. Furthermore, there is such a thing as barbaric cultural practices and traditions, and it is excessively politically correct to say that "we shouldn't criticize other cultures based on our own values." Of course we can criticize them based on our own values as long as we do our best to make sure that our values are based on things like logic, reason, and modern scientific knowledge.
• "There should be no countries and no borders" is another utopian, ivory-tower mantra. Borders are very practical to limit or prevent the entry of people that the country deems undesirable for the purpose of maintaining its welfare. For instance, borders are useful for preventing criminals convicted of, say, murder or theft in another country from entering one's country.
Also, borders can be useful for limiting (emphasis on "limiting," not necessarily completely preventing) the entry of people whose values significantly contradict and possibly undermine those of one's own country. For example, if a country doesn't want very large numbers of homophobes and/or sexists (for example) from another country to move to it, borders can help to limit that. There's nothing wrong per se with the concept of preserving one's culture; only when said preservation is based on false assumptions and faulty logic.
• "If you work hard, you will earn enough money to live comfortably" is not an inaccurate statement in all situations, but in many situations it is. There are many people, especially in less developed countries with relatively high unemployment rates, who work very hard and still don't earn enough to live comfortably. Some people where I live earn degrees in study-intensive fields like engineering and medicine and then only manage to find low-paying jobs, if they even find a job at all.
Also related to the above is that many rich people haven't worked hard to earn their wealth, but many also have. I don't view rich people as the enemy that some people view them as. Instead, I consider their contributions or lack thereof to society relative to their wealth and how they have earned it. "Wealth inequality" in the sense of "not all citizens of a country have the same amount of assets or money" seems to me to not be a bad thing at all in and of itself. Of course wealth isn't going to be distributed equally. What matters is whether it is distributed fairly.
• Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and I believe the end should be the well-being of all citizens in any given country. This means that if democracy resulted in persecution of minorities or any other injustices in a country, dictatorship wouldn't necessarily be undesirable. As such, "This president/prime minister is a dictator" isn't a bad thing per se unless this dictatorship persecutes any given group of people or violates constitutional laws that the dictator initially vowed to uphold—in which case changes in such laws shouldn't be off the table for future benefit.
• "There are no violent ideologies or religions; only violent people" is an absolutely incorrect and dangerously short-sighted statement. There are violent ideologies and religions, and there are violent people. A person can be violent while following an ideology or religion that is also violent. The two are not mutually exclusive and sometimes feed off each other.
Another related aspect of this is that some ideologies and religions are indeed more peaceful and tolerant than others, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't tolerate followers of the less peaceful religions as long as the latter don't engage in any violence or any other kind of harmful activity. I believe pluralism has far more solid grounds to stand on than universalism.
• Finally, I strongly support LGBT rights, gender equality, religious freedom (as long as it doesn't include infringing on the freedoms of others), and absolute secularism of state laws. I think these things should be protected by the state even if that requires a certain degree of dictatorship.
If you have read this far, thank you. I appreciate it. I know that was closer to a small book than a thread OP.
So, what are these views classified as, if they even have a fixed label at all?
Also, if you read only a part of the OP or don't feel like continuing before commenting, that's also fine with me as long as the comments stick to the topic.
So, I guess this is similar to the "What religion do my beliefs match?" threads, except that this one is about politics instead. It's not that I'm eager to label myself; I'm just wondering where my views would fit so that I could look up posts, articles, etc., by others who share similar views without having to go through ten articles I disagree with before finding one I agree with.
Since I can't accurately describe myself using any of the labels I currently know (e.g., liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.), I'm posting this to ask which ideological label, if any, best describes these views.
These are some of my views (in no particular order), and I'm stating them strictly as my personal views—and please note that these are general, summarized views that can differ to varying extents according to different contexts:
• Modern-day conservatism has considerable amounts of bigotry, irrationality, and harmful beliefs that encourage, among other things, war and supporting oppression, be it domestically or abroad. Modern-day liberalism has considerable amounts of excessive political correctness, dangerous moral and cultural relativism, tolerance of harmful beliefs (especially religious ones), and almost dogmatic views of what constitutes "freedom" and "tolerance."
I think liberals generally have it right concerning most social issues, and conservatives have a lot of things right concerning the flaws of cultures other than their own. For instance, I have actually seen very reasonable criticism of racism in the U.S. from some Islamists and religious as well as political conservatives in Egypt. Likewise, I have seen very reasonable criticism of Muslim culture from some American and European conservatives.
Generally, I believe that if one were to collect some of the criticism of conservatism in different cultures put forth by conservatives in other cultures, one could end up with a very rational collection of critiques of conservatism everywhere. One of the main reasons for this is that conservatives generally don't hold back on criticizing other cultures and religions on the grounds of political correctness and/or moral or cultural relativism, unlike a lot of liberals.
• I think that pacifism is, in many cases, so idealistic as to be impractical and sometimes even dangerous. For some examples, it took two atomic bombs to help end World War II, bin Laden didn't stop engaging in terrorism until he was assassinated, and ISIS is metastasizing and being so brutal right now that any countries' pacifism toward them would basically amount to surrendering to them.
In other words, "violence solves nothing" is a utopian mantra that can be almost completely unhelpful in real-world global politics. I think that countries should only eschew violence when it is unnecessary, not categorically.
• Morality is objective and should be based on maximizing and maintaining the well-being of conscious creatures, primarily humans but also including other animals. Furthermore, there is such a thing as barbaric cultural practices and traditions, and it is excessively politically correct to say that "we shouldn't criticize other cultures based on our own values." Of course we can criticize them based on our own values as long as we do our best to make sure that our values are based on things like logic, reason, and modern scientific knowledge.
• "There should be no countries and no borders" is another utopian, ivory-tower mantra. Borders are very practical to limit or prevent the entry of people that the country deems undesirable for the purpose of maintaining its welfare. For instance, borders are useful for preventing criminals convicted of, say, murder or theft in another country from entering one's country.
Also, borders can be useful for limiting (emphasis on "limiting," not necessarily completely preventing) the entry of people whose values significantly contradict and possibly undermine those of one's own country. For example, if a country doesn't want very large numbers of homophobes and/or sexists (for example) from another country to move to it, borders can help to limit that. There's nothing wrong per se with the concept of preserving one's culture; only when said preservation is based on false assumptions and faulty logic.
• "If you work hard, you will earn enough money to live comfortably" is not an inaccurate statement in all situations, but in many situations it is. There are many people, especially in less developed countries with relatively high unemployment rates, who work very hard and still don't earn enough to live comfortably. Some people where I live earn degrees in study-intensive fields like engineering and medicine and then only manage to find low-paying jobs, if they even find a job at all.
Also related to the above is that many rich people haven't worked hard to earn their wealth, but many also have. I don't view rich people as the enemy that some people view them as. Instead, I consider their contributions or lack thereof to society relative to their wealth and how they have earned it. "Wealth inequality" in the sense of "not all citizens of a country have the same amount of assets or money" seems to me to not be a bad thing at all in and of itself. Of course wealth isn't going to be distributed equally. What matters is whether it is distributed fairly.
• Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and I believe the end should be the well-being of all citizens in any given country. This means that if democracy resulted in persecution of minorities or any other injustices in a country, dictatorship wouldn't necessarily be undesirable. As such, "This president/prime minister is a dictator" isn't a bad thing per se unless this dictatorship persecutes any given group of people or violates constitutional laws that the dictator initially vowed to uphold—in which case changes in such laws shouldn't be off the table for future benefit.
• "There are no violent ideologies or religions; only violent people" is an absolutely incorrect and dangerously short-sighted statement. There are violent ideologies and religions, and there are violent people. A person can be violent while following an ideology or religion that is also violent. The two are not mutually exclusive and sometimes feed off each other.
Another related aspect of this is that some ideologies and religions are indeed more peaceful and tolerant than others, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't tolerate followers of the less peaceful religions as long as the latter don't engage in any violence or any other kind of harmful activity. I believe pluralism has far more solid grounds to stand on than universalism.
• Finally, I strongly support LGBT rights, gender equality, religious freedom (as long as it doesn't include infringing on the freedoms of others), and absolute secularism of state laws. I think these things should be protected by the state even if that requires a certain degree of dictatorship.
If you have read this far, thank you. I appreciate it. I know that was closer to a small book than a thread OP.
So, what are these views classified as, if they even have a fixed label at all?
