A Quote by Leo Varadkar

If I was to describe myself in terms of a political philosophy, I'd cast myself as a social and economic liberal, which is typically what people describe as being left-of-centre on social issues and right-of-centre on economic issues.
In my estimation, there should always be a mixture of economic liberalism - which means small government, a great emphasis on markets - but also a certain degree of social conservatism, not to favor change unless that change is beneficial. So I describe myself as an economic liberal and a social conservative.
I don't know if I even consider myself a very political person. I have always had strong beliefs on important social issues. Politics have politicized social issues, but I don't know if social issues are in fact political. If anything, they are more human issues than they are political issues.
My parents are left-wing, and I would describe myself as that. But also, you know what? I wouldn't describe myself as that. Because I don't have to. Because I'm not a political party. Most people are a little bit of each, and we change our mind on various issues.
What I've found is that there is a tremendous interest in these issues, across the political spectrum, sort of left-right terms we used to describe people don't really hold here exactly.
The nature of the state is one thing, but there are other major challenges - what it will take to tackle the issues of social corruption, for example, social justice, and the economic system - and what are the future challenges when it comes to equality between the citizens, in particular in the field of the job market and equal opportunity for men and for women? This is at the centre of the question that is the Arab Awakening.
The right-of-centre parties still often compete with left-of-centre ones to proclaim their attachment to all the main programmes of spending, particularly spending on social services of one kind or another. But this foolish as well as muddled. It is foolish because left-of-centre parties will always be able to outbid right-of-centre ones in this auction - after all, that is why they are on the left in the first place. The muddle arises because once we concede that public spending and taxation are than a necessary evil we have lost sight of the core values of freedom.
Economic issues are just as much moral issues as social issues.
What I would like to build is a new centre, a wider, broader centre, which would encompass a lot of different philosophies - you know, the philosophy that I'm putting forward that is a market liberal philosophy and a socially liberal philosophy but would have room in it for a broader church than that.
No left wing parties have any respect for liberal economic values; and most centre and right wing parties merely promote a paternalistic stateism. Does it thus fall to the self-reliant students of the ruggedly individualist philosophy of magick to champion a certain measured libertarianism?
Scotland has a great deal to offer the world in terms of our approach to key economic and social issues.
People are being overwhelmed with social issues, political problems and economic problems - and this notion of giving everything up and going to live off-grid and to have a simpler way of life is quite attractive.
Economic issues are a subset of social justice. Social justice is unimaginable without economic justice. Isn't that obvious?
I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues.
There are things that I can agree with from both sides: perhaps the civil libertarian issues of the Left and also the economic freedom issues of the Right while still rejecting the big-government tendencies of both sides of the political spectrum.
The decisions of the courts on economic and social questions depend on their economic and social philosophy.
I don't believe we need to choose between addressing economic issues and addressing issues of social or racial justice.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!