Where your ideology says you should live
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I got Lester, IA which apparently has an off the charts population density of 464,912 people per square mile! Total population is only 294 though...
also, in case anyone cares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_(Seattle)
GeoIP would not seem to be a strong component, for the "Don't Include" and "Disagree" options were a long ways away (both near the state capitol, in fact), although in my Purple state with two big cities there's really a lot of areas for everyone.
The place I actually live was #3 on the list, so close enough I guess.
I think I'll be staying in San Diego, though; it skews fairly conservative for California but like most places you can find plenty of people with similar views to your own here if that's what you're after.
The origin of the name is in part in reaction to neoconservatives (the real ones, not the silly, almost meaningless epithet it's become post-9/11). They were Communists/socialists/liberals, err, the latter are now progressives again, who lost faith due to the manifold failings of the Left. There's of course a lot more to say about them, especially their attitudes towards change, the distinguishing characteristic is that paleocons never had a phase when they were on the Left.
By 1988 George H. W. Bush was successfully using the word to attack Michael S. Dukakis (although Bush was rather liberal, as the word was used then, e.g. anti-gun, but Dukakis was outright radical, so it worked), and now it's back to Progressive. Or is it Forward! to it ^_^?
The general position is safety and forced health on everyone. It is a basic control of person issue. You cannot do anything that I don't approve of. It is quite a pain in the US with all the petty tyrants running city or school boards.
Yeah - I can buy that.
But, most people (because most of us don't have power) are generally for more liberties, right?
Unfortunately, where there is power, there are people who want to impose rules. And, like you, I hate rules.
But, how do we get rid of power? People have tried to do that for ages (with often monstrous results).
The democratic republic system seems best, in theory: A bunch of people without much power, individually, band together and grant their aggregate power to a trustworthy person to act on their behalf. That sounds pretty awesome.
But, it doesn't work too well in practice. The powerful just end up electing themselves (or their proxies).
The partial answer I prefer is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) and a well armed citizenry. It puts a ceiling on the tyranny the "powerful" can impose, by allowing empowerment of the less powerful.
For the most recent recognition of this concept, note that one of the many, many rules ISIS is imposing is that nobody else can own guns: http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2014/06/totalitarian-gove... (link to a blog so you won't use up your Torgygraph monthly quota; the author is very reliable). Even the anti-gun US authorities, when occupying Iraq, allowed each household to own one AK-47.
Before you have to resort to that, note e.g. Heinlein's advise that you can almost always vote against someone. As long as the system allows negative votes to oust the powerful, they too are working under a ceiling, although of course they frequently don't realize it until it's too late, e.g. ask Eric Cantor, the first House Majority leader to lose an election since the office was created in 1899. Cost the powerful power, and they'll change their ways or continue to lose power.
Most people are for liberties that they want to exercise in the way they want to exercise them. I would say the number is much closer to 50/50 on things they don't want to exercise. There are quite a few busybodies out there.