Freethought: Scientific pursuit of the truth.

Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:23:46 -0700

I think we've all been there. Tired of it, tired of the corrupt major parties. You have one that I honestly believe is made up corrupt idiot assholes (Republicans). You have another that has some people intending to do good but are incompetent or spineless and the rest are just as corrupt as the Republicans while pretending to be "progressive" when they're the farthest thing from it.

My problems with democrats:

corrupt
pro-drug war
pro-fed
pro-war
not strong enough on the environment
not strong enough for gay rights
not strong enough for women's rights
not strong enough corporate regulation
pro-bailouts
pro-teacher union
pro corporate personhood
anti-privacy
pro torture
pro isreal

My problem with repubilicans:

racist
sexist
homophobic
theocratic
war mongers
corrupt
believe in knee jerk punishments to societal problems rather than reasoned solutions.
pro bailouts
pro fed
pro drug war
anti-healthcare solutions of any kind (including market based solutions. it seems they're only capable of criticizing the dems solutions)
pro corporate rape of the world and everything in it.
anti-privacy
pro torture
pro isreal

But I go and I look at third parties and different modes of thought and find myself utterly incapable of attaching myself to any of them to a point where i could say i'm "mostly" one thing or another.

Constitution Party

Religious nut bags, next.

My problem with Libertarians:

consistent science deniers (global warming). I know they value their economic liberty as a civil right within itself and to an extent it makes sense. But you mention global warming around them and it's like mentioning the holocaust to NeoNazi's. You get this emotive reaction and arm flailing about how all the scientists in all the countries, and all the governments are in on the "big lie" to fool all of us. It's a conspiracy of such proportions I think holocaust deniers and those who think the moon walk was done in a hollywood basement look sane by comparison. So why do they so actively deny it? Well pollution, especially when it is teeny tiny amount from each one of us, actively damaging the atmosphere.. it's hard to hold someone wholly responsible in a court under their system. Who do you sue? Do you sue everyone ? They're system is simply ill equipped. Sure, there are some free market environmental solutions and I support those whole heartedly. But I just find denying scientific fact because it violates your anti-pragmatic world view intellectually dishonest. I don't need to associate with anyone that fanatical about their political philosophy to the point they can't smell their own bullshit.
were happy about the supreme court decision enabling corporations to donate freely to campaign ads. The idea that supposed "liberty-lovers" believe in corporate personhood is laughable.
they claim pro-choice, yet worship the likes of Ron Paul. Too many within the party or fans of the party are simply small government moral-majority republicans in sheep's clothing.

Too many libertarians were all gung-ho about the war initially. This is what makes me think that, even though most stand against corporatism and for civil rights, that many are Republicans in disguise.

My problem with communist-anarchists.

They can't answer basic questions like: how do you prevent and/or punish (or otherwise handle) violent criminals. They have great critiques about what causes violence and how society should be shaped in a way to prevent such violence from occurring but no solutions to handle modern day problems that are happening right now. Apparently the only answer they have to a dude getting jumped and his jaw broken, is for the guy to join a neighborhood association to prevent further crime and allow the thugs to walk free. Talk about putting your fucking on-paper philosophy above real world solutions. I guess neighborhood associations and hand holding everyone and creating a world that imprisons violent offenders away from innocent civilians is just too much to ask. Cultural causes of violence can be reduced, but you'll never get rid of it. And that you don't get rid of needs to be dealt with somehow. This single issue makes me think most anarchists don't believe in anything in order to separate anarchy from chaos. And in fact, any of the solutions to the problem will negate the existence of anarchy. This thread illustrates this perfectly: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/auppu/ask_anarchism_subreddit_how_ought_anarchists/

-They have no way to prevent a state or corporation rising to power, or capitalism infiltrating a hypothetical anarchist society without a central authority that they oppose.

Furthermore as we've seen, any time communism has been attempted off paper in anything larger than a commune, the whole "anarchist" part goes right out the window and a government who shares more with a fascist state than it does with a free state ends up in power. (Vietnam, N Korea, China, USSR, etc..)

My problems with greens:

have little (or show little) comprehension of fiscal responsibility and see's government bloat as the answer to every problem no matter how big or small. Granted, they at least acknowledge that the deficit is an issue in need of fixing (as do libertarians), which is something the two major parties shit on, but the sheer size of government programs they want do little to make me think they would get around to fixing it either.
has a huge image problem. They're last 3 candidates was a guy who just runs and runs and runs for president rather than trying to make change in other more constructive ways (nader), Cynthia McKinney best known for violence against a cop while she was a member of the House, and David Cobb who talked with a lisp and referred to himself in the 3rd person during the 3rd party debates in 2004. And maybe this is just an image thing (and completely anecdotal), but I've found most people who identify as "green" that i've met personally to usually be a few marbles short. I just sit and wait for them to talk to me about the zodiac or my heart chakra, or some spiritual pseudo-science twist on quantum physics.
are politically correct to the point of absurdity (they're for reparations) and who completely support self-imposed victimhood based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. I understand very well where the system favors whites over blacks, women over men, men over women, and the way it treats immigrants and homosexuals unfairly. And all of these things need to be fixed. But this endless Whole Foods guilt complex i find to be a horrible approach.

I read Hayek, Chomsky, Marx, Rand, Zinn, hell even some sprinkling of Nader, Al Franken and Michael Moore among other texts... and I just can't help it. I don't think I'm smarter than these guys. I don't think i'm more knowledgeable than these guys. But for some reason, I can't help but think every political speaker, philosopher, politicians, even the uncorrupted and well-intended.. at times sound like they're completely full of themselves and are completely deluded when their world view doesn't fit a particular situation.

I guess my question is, is anyone else like this? Where they just don't fit in the grand political spectrum and that you float around a bit and don't really stick anywhere? Where you look at mode of thought after mode of thought and at first you're like "fuck yeah" and then after a little exposure and allowing the mode of thought to circle around for a bit you can't help but look at the group with a little bit of disdain because these people seem incapable of not knowing when their worldview doesn't really create the desired effect? It always make feel a bit lost and a bit unsure about myself. I sit back and i criticize where other's philosophies are not pragmatic, but i take no joy in the fact that i have no philosophy. I have no desired set of unbending rules that make up what I believe. What I believe is fluid to consequence and to context. And it makes me feel a tad unstable and a tad anti-intellectual. To win a debate, to even pick a side in a debate it's usually pretty good to have a solid foundation in which to base all your arguments from, the branches of your feelings of various smaller subjects always come back to the "big themes" found within your philosophical foundation.. .and I simply feel I don't have that and it bothers me a tad, because I know without this foundation I am bound to contradict myself and i'm bound to by hypocritical somewhere in my line of thinking. But I can't seem to find any mode of thought that I wholly agree with either. Not enough to identify as such. But it a philosophy or a party. Either/or.

submitted by [deleted]
[link] [67 comments]

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T21:40:51.269445-07:00-0700

Anarchism isn't about a blueprint for utopia. It's simply the belief that we can get together as people and come up with solutions ourselves, that we don't need a boss telling us what to do. That's all. And, maybe I'm biased, but a group of folks sitting around discussing what caused the altercation and trying to find a solution that's best for everyone involved sounds a hell of a lot better than maintaining a class of people who are empowered to show up and start shooting without consequence. A strong sense of community and connection with one's neighbors is the best deterrent against violence, not an aggressive police force.

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-15T02:43:13.459145-07:00-0700

Anarchism seems as devoid of real-world understanding of human nature as communism. Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could all just do our thing? Not so much, for most people. They're either stupid, criminal, negligent, insane, or greedy. I'd like to be left alone too. It's just never going to work that way. We can take some real steps towards personal freedom, though. The drug war comes right to mind.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-15T22:08:07.339120-07:00-0700

Anarchism is exactly the opposite of what you describe. Nobody can survive if we all "do our own thing." We need other people. Anarchism is suggesting that we work together to arrive at a solution that's best for everyone involved. Regarding your poor opinion of humanity: Which catagory do you fall into? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm curious if you're exempt from the wicked, wicked human nature that prevents us from cooperating. If so, why? Humanity is all we've got. If you're right and we can't possibly survive without someone in control of us, telling us what to do - what's the point of living?

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-21T19:45:50.183513-07:00-0700

Yes, and like communism, it can work on a small scale. On a large scale, humans are greedy, self-serving, lawbreaking, cheating bastards. That includes me. Communism never dealt with the realities of human nature, and neither does anarchism. You're right. We are all we have. And unfortunately, we have to cater to the least common denominator. Freedom cannot come without responsibility, and you aren't going to get that by hope or force.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-22T14:28:40.411320-07:00-0700

I don't believe in "human nature" as an argument. People have the capacity for both selfishness and compassion. How much of one or the other we act on is determined largely by our living conditions. If we have a system that encourages (no, *demands*) ruthless competition in order to survive, then humans will appear largely greedy and self-serving. However, if we can create a model of interaction that's based on cooperation and mutual aid, I believe we will see much more positive behavior. Why do people lie, cheat, and steal in the first place? To meet their basic needs. Needs that are not being met under our current economic system.

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-22T23:08:37.001983-07:00-0700

You are really in denial. Those seem like good answers, but the evidence does not bear them out. There are many in the US who have their basic needs met, and yet they lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Many more become useless slugs. You can create a model, but I suggest you look at sociology texts before you do. Don't get me wrong. The system DOES suck. It's just that you don't have the way to fix it. You've bought into an idealized world that is frankly impossible. Randites have the same problem. They have an ill-developed theory that ignores the fundamentals of human nature.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-23T23:32:17.979765-07:00-0700

Yes, let's look at sociology and psychology texts. Specifically at the parts about social norms and learned behaviors. We grew up in a society that values material success above all else. Our daily lives are shaped by an economic system that requires ruthless competition in order to survive. How can we avoid reflecting those values to some degree? Why is it so hard to imagine that a different system, one that rewards cooperation instead of competition, would produce different behaviors?

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-25T00:30:50.907243-07:00-0700

Not all of that is shaped by society, and to believe so is yet more ignorance. You're picking and choosing. You want to look for the best in humanity, and that's great. But that's not all. Children that grow up under other systems invariably show just as many undesirable qualities as those that grow up in one that values material success so much. Look, it's a nice try, but I'll say it again. Human beings are inherently mostly self-absorbed and selfish, and will break any law or moral code if they think they won't be caught. Read the news. Don't cherry pick the data that supports your claims. You're going down the same road as communism by ignoring the real people who get in the way of your ideal.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T06:40:47.120359-07:00-0700

>That's all. And, maybe I'm biased, but a group of folks sitting around discussing what caused the altercation and trying to find a solution that's best for everyone involved sounds a hell of a lot better than maintaining a class of people who are empowered to show up and start shooting without consequence. Sitting around and talking is fine and dandy. Coming up with violence prevention solutions, participating in the community, joining neighborhood watches.. all good things. But in the immediate case in the link: gang of guys jumps someone and breaks his jaw..these talks about what COULD be and SHOULD Be and how to improve the world accomplishes and prevents nothing in regards to THESE violent criminals. Especially when the demographic talking about said solutions are looking at the long term, and the demographic is so small that in order to have any effective change looks incredibly improbable. In regards to the linked thread, a gang of guys who see nothing wrong with breaking someone else's jaw get to roam free and possibly hurt someone else, possibly many more someone else's because a bunch of people belonging to an extremely small political minority want to have an intellectual circle jerk. I would fathom if my 4 year old daughter was violently raped and murdered they'd tell me to join a neighborhood watch too. Quite awesome for a bunch of educated white kids to sit around and play "social experiment" all day while people are out their getting murders, raped, beaten, etc.. >maintaining a class of people who are empowered to show up and start shooting without consequence. They're still maintaining a class of people who are empowered to show up and hurt others without consequence. They're transferring this empowerment from someone with a badge to a kid on the streets.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T10:30:17.355883-07:00-0700

This is anarchy. Right now. You and I are having a reasonable discussion as equals about how to solve a problem. We're working cooperatively, without needing to put anyone in an elevated position of control. I envision the same thing happening in the situation you describe. I think the focus in any such case should be to repair the damage done, rather than punish those involved. Check out Restorative Justice. Will more violence heal that guy's jaw? What would the best possible solution for everyone involved look like? I don't know the answer. Like I said, I don't believe anarchism is any sort of detailed instruction manual for the perfect society. I believe that it is simply the best and most humane way to interact with one another as fellow humans.

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-15T02:45:48.000429-07:00-0700

It is anarchism of a sort. We aren't making policy here, we're just exploring the idea, and we do that using a set of rules. That doesn't mean that this sort of anarchism will translate to anything useful in real life.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-15T22:08:55.360952-07:00-0700

What's the difference?

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-21T19:41:25.597606-07:00-0700

You don't understand the difference between the Internet and real life??

Octal040 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:23:16.912843-07:00-0700

First of all, the OP came in and specifically asked what could be done to lower the likely hood of it happening in future because he refused to call the police or use courts on principle. No irreversible harm was done. They understood that it amounted, only, to financial harm in the end and all branches of anarchy have ways to deal with financial harm. Other than the fact that the police are monopolized, the solution you gave to the problem fit in perfectly with any kind of anarchist system. Right or left. So I don't understand why you feel they're a bunch of jack offs. Educated white ones at that. You imply that you are both anti-intellectual and racist. You may just fit with the Republicans after all. Yes, they were attempting to come up with a more civilized way of dealing with a crime that was committed and nothing more could be done because the attackers were long gone no amount of police could change the outcome. All any anarchist has is hypothetical situations because it's against the law to be equipped to defend your self or to even fight back in a lot of cases. In the absence of a monopolized police force people would be willing and equipped to defend them selves while, at the same time, taking steps reduce the root causes of this kind of violence. In left and right oriented anarchies, restoration to original state is all that really matters. Non-market anarchy can accomplish this by having the criminal use his time and labor. Market anarchy can accomplish it the same way but money can be substituted. However, capitalist anarchy presents a problem because some people could become disproportionately more wealthy than most and could afford to commit crime almost, but not quite, indefinitely. Even so, the Austrian's theories would serve to reduce crime in the majority of situations. Revenge, for it's own sake is not needed if the victim is restored to his original state by the aggressor. Combine all three (personal defense, root causes, and restoration) and you have a system of crime reduction that is at least as good and probably better than what we have now. Definitely more efficient and fair to more people. In regards to the rape and murder of your kid: do you really think anyone would fault you for immediately killing everyone involved? Do you really believe no one would help you kill them? Do you think people would go around committing these kinds of crimes as often, if they knew the punishment for it is swift and immediate death, rather than two years of court battles, 10-20 years in jail, and maybe a painless death long after? Also, /r/anarchy is not Marxist communist. Most of us live in a range between voluntarist and Anarcho-Communist. Marxism, the force behind all Communist revolutions, is to Anarchy, what the Libertarian Party is to Anarcho-Capitalism. They are centralized solutions to social problems. They both require the existence of a state and end in the same result. /r/Anarchy supports neither. So, thanks putting us all in your box. While some may draw heavily from Marx, they are in fact anarchists. Not Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist. In the case of Russia, you had a few anarchists allying with the people (many of whom were Marxist) and fighting for their own piece against Marxists. Mao was a Leninist++. No communist revolution has ever started as an anarchist revolution. You also mentioned libertarians and global warming else where. The first thing you have to realize is that libertarians are not deniers. You may be confusing libertarians with the new crop of Republican refugees looking for a home after their party collapsed. They're still stuck in their ways and it'll take time for them to learn new ways or die off. The non-aggression principle coupled with contractual agreements does provide for relief from pollution. Libertarians don't deny the facts of climate change but there is concrete proof that gov't is using it as a means to seize more control from the populace rather than corporations. Either by hiding supporting evidence to reduce the cost to industry, or by hiding counter-supporting evidence to pass taxes. People on the ground don't know which way to turn and none of us can do anything but defer to the experts and hope we picked the right ones. Their view of individual freedom trumps anything the gov't would do to combat climate change, anyway. Still, you have the problems of disproportionately wealthy people being able to afford to pollute more because they can afford to lose more money. Whatever your beef with Ron Paul, he's not trying to force his religious views down anyone's throat. He has stood by his politics his whole life and that's something you can't say about any other member of our gov't. He would give the gov't back to the states if it were in his power and he wouldn't deny you the right to move to a new state or stand up to a state that went crazy. That's a whole lot more than anyone else is fighting for even if it does move corruption from one place to anther. Pro-war Libertarians generally don't exist. If you've met them, you've met something other than a Libertarian. Maybe an aspiring Libertarian, I don't know. I know you've never met a Libertarian in office that is pro-war. I could count on one hand the number of them in office, anyway. People on the internet are just that and even a large gathering of people on the internet represent a small part of anything. Disclaimer: I'm not a Paul supporter or Libertarian so don't bother defending your views on either. No form of Anarchy will provide you immediate practical results on a large scale. No form of statism will provide you with enduring peace and justice. I just think you haven't done enough research on all of your options to sit in judgement of them. There will probably never be a utopia so you can stop looking for a single path to it. Good luck with your search. You'll need it with that attitude.

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T11:53:39.202412-07:00-0700

>It's simply the belief that we can get together as people and come up with solutions ourselves, that we don't need a boss telling us what to do. Have you ever seen a group of people get together for any significant amount of time without someone taking some form of control or primary influence? It seems there is an inherent "herd mentality" in humanity where one (or more) people seek to be alpha and the rest follow. This seems to be another area where there aren't any practical examples in history of this scenario operating on any significant scale, and like the anarcho versions of libertarianism, remains mainly a theoretical construct.

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:37:11.933502-07:00-0700

> Have you ever seen a group of people get together for any significant amount of time without someone taking some form of control or primary influence? Yes. It also doesn't help that we ingrain in each child the supposed importance of authority and obeying that authority. Not many people have been exposed to the anarchist ideals of organization, but those that are can certainly organize in ways that don't allow for someone to come into control of the group.

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T16:18:28.482828-07:00-0700

>Yes. Yes? That's it? No further explanation? Never mind. I don't know what it is with you anrcho-capitalists and why you're hanging out in the Freethought forum downvoting anybody with a rational idea, but I'm not thinking it adds anything to the conversation. >It also doesn't help that we ingrain in each child the supposed importance of authority and obeying that authority. It's not taught so much as it's genetic. It's part of survival instinct. This is why in almost every species, the infant creatures cling to their parents for protection. This is why most ideological groups like religion want to influence young children. Before "the age of reason" people are genetically predisposed to believe the teaching of authority figures, before they develop critical thinking skills, as a means of survival. Obviously higher institutions have exploited this genetic characteristic but that doesn't mean it has no value. This is also a fundamental tenet of *survival of the fittest*. The most powerful being in the community will, by default, be an authority figure. This was going on long before governments showed up. >anarchist ideals of organization LOL If there ever was an oxymoron, that's it.

briesa37 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-29T17:38:55.516546-07:00-0700

Examples of anarchy in action: Spain in 1936 The Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico from 1994 to the present Anarchist Ukraine 1919-1921 the Paris Commune 1871 You and your friends sitting around talking about what to do tonight. Does one person always pick and no one gets to argue? Do you vote for one of two people and then they get to decide? Or do you all bring your ideas to the table and discuss the pros and cons of each? That's anarchy, my friend. I've heard this assumption that humans are predisposed towards heirarchy before and it never gets any more convincing. Yes, young people look to their parents for protection. They also shit themselves. We grow up, though, and stop shitting all over and start thinking for ourselves. I've yet to see any reasonable evidence for this genetic inclination for dominance. And no, just saying "survival of the fittest" doesn't count. Fittest in that case means "best adapted" not "most ruthlessly competitive." Ask yourself why it might be in a capitalist's interest to promote one definition of that term over the other. Anarchists are not against organization. It's a common misconception, so I won't call you any names, but it's quite false. We are against rulers, that's all. We want society to be organized, possibly even more organized than it is now; we just don't want any person or persons to have power over others. Also, not all anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I consider that an insult, thank you very much.

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:51:18.250679-07:00-0700

Short answer in the form of a YouTube video:[Anarchism and Crime](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoCGFDCuzww) Long answer from An Anarchist FAQ: [What about Crime?](http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html#seci58)

stevetac on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-01T16:34:04.069424-07:00-0700

Wow. A really well done pollyanna view of anarchism. Statements with no proofs. Crimes with no definitions, punishments or treatments the same. Chuck that one out the window. You're ignoring some basic human properties the same way that Marx and Lenin did. I'm all for freedom, but it has to come with responsibility.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:59:28.544429-07:00-0700

There is no answer that will sate the fact that violent men who committed a violent crime roam free to repeat the offense. All the prevention in the world, all the societal improvements in the world from an anarchist mode of thought simply are ill equipped with getting criminals like this away from people who don't wish to be beaten (or worse). It might -- if it was ever put to mass practice, prevent and reduce a lot of societal violence, but it will not end it. So the complaints of the abuser with a badge with unchecked power gets replaced by any walking citizen who feels like beating the fuck out of someone. That is completely unacceptable. It's just shy of being completely permissive and even supportive of violence, funny enough, under the guise of preventing violence.

[deleted] on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T14:47:15.958029-07:00-0700

[deleted]

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:30:25.003010-07:00-0700

Exactly. All "systems" have flaws, we're looking to live a way that minimizes those flaws as much as possible and anarchists believe that anarchy is answer to that.

dbzer0 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T13:28:16.427297-07:00-0700

>All the prevention in the world, all the societal improvements in the world from an anarchist mode of thought simply are ill equipped with getting criminals like this away from people who don't wish to be beaten Community defence and neighborhood watches are ill equipped to prevent criminals from beating their members? Reality begs to disagree with you. >So the complaints of the abuser with a badge with unchecked power gets replaced by any walking citizen who feels like beating the fuck out of someone. How exaclty can a citizen who feels like beating the fuck out of someone get away with it? You keep asserting nonsense like that and I'm truly starting to think that you're not interested in seeing what anarchists really suggest but rather to simply dismiss it with strawman arguments.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T15:38:43.755632-07:00-0700

>you're not interested in seeing what anarchists really suggest That's because i haven't heard any suggestions, just mild approaches to bettering society and semi-effective preventive measures, but nothing to ensure these criminals have their freedom restricted or are rehabilitated in order to not harm others.

dbzer0 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T16:21:03.654760-07:00-0700

So you're basically saying that because we haven't said what you think the solution should be, we're not suggesting anything serious. Not even thinking to question what you already accepted the solution should be.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T16:27:27.425371-07:00-0700

I just want to know how your big bad neighborhood associations and kumbaya hand holding is equipped to handle gangs, organized crime, terror networks of the religious variety, not to mention serial killers, serial rapists, pedophiles and persons of extreme sexual and violent psychiatric disorders when you don't even see jail or other means of force as a means of punishing and/or rehabilitating a group of men who broke another person's jaw. Every solution put forth by you and everyone else is a intellectual circle jerk custom fit to your polarizing political/idealogical crap.

dbzer0 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T16:36:26.053620-07:00-0700

I don't see how any other solution is equipped to handle any of the things you mention. In case you didn't notice, gangs, organized crime, terror networks of the religious variety etc etc still exist and keep getting stonger in fact. I would make the effort to explain why anarchist ways are better, but even the hostile way by which you reply shows that you are not interested in seriously thinking about what anarchism has to propose. You only wish to find excuses to dismiss it since you've already made up you mind. I only find it humorous that you're realized that none of the political parties has any solution, and they're rather part of the problem, and yet you are at loss at how to proceed now. So in truth, you current action plan, is even worse than even those "intellectual circle jerks" that anarchists suggests, as it consists of "lets do nothing while we ponder around in reddit and bask in our nihilism"

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T17:10:39.508752-07:00-0700

Just b/c the other parties are wrong in their approach doesn't make the anarchist's correct (regardless of variety). I'm sure libertarian's use the same argument.

dbzer0 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-30T17:16:58.013206-07:00-0700

I'm not saying that because the others are wrong, we are correct. The reasons why anarchists are correct are myriad. I'm just pointing out that anarchists have a way to deal with the problems you present and you dismissing them because they do not do what you think they should be doing is ridiculous if nothing can do what you think should be done. I.e. you're dismissing anarchism because it cannot achieve the impossible.

ChaosMotor on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T13:13:04.848737-07:00-0700

>consistent science deniers (global warming). Not true. >were happy about the supreme court decision Not true. >they claim pro-choice If this one's a problem, you don't understand libertarians. It doesn't matter what our moral position is, our political position is that it's not up to the government to decide what's best for us. So, like Ron Paul, you can be pro-"life" (what a shitty term) but still support keeping the government out of the debate, or you can be pro-choice and still think it's none of the government's business.

forever_erratic on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T12:59:16.689445-07:00-0700

So you say all the things you have problems with, but you don't say what you wish there was in a party? What do you expect us to say?

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T13:08:11.040859-07:00-0700

I guess i'm asking several questions here: 1. If you have a set in stone philosophy (like some mentioned above), what do you do when a situation arises (or a subject) that your philosophy is ill equipped to handle? 2. If you don't have a set in stone philosophy, how do you avoid falling into traps of hypocrisy or contradiction? For those that seem to base their approaches contextually from subject to subject, even with a loose philosophical guide, it seems to me they will be bound to be hypocritical in their approach from one subject to another somewhere along the line. And more so, is lack of philosophical purity resulting in personal hypocrisy or contradiction ok? And IF so, what right do we have to call out other's contradictions as faults? 3. Why are we as people, at least many of us, so drawn to have a sense of belonging when it comes to our political thought? 4. A simple inquiry asking "am i alone in this mode of introspection? "

blackjewobamafan on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T03:47:57.141753-07:00-0700

It sounds like you felt close to one of the political views you've listed but you've seen things that made you question your alliances. Which was it? And why did it change?

Nobuddy on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T13:03:22.679388-07:00-0700

First, you are not alone. I felt like I could have written your post myself. Thanks for doing me the favor. My philosophy is a nihilism, I don't know anything. I came upon it from a disagreement with Descartes. Philosophy is about knowledge, that's what it means; love of knowing. To know something means it has to be true and proven. To prove something you must first know something. I don't know the first thing so am unable to prove anything logically. Like Descartes I begin with doubt. I doubt all that came before when I realize that I'm doubting. Then I doubt some more and realize that doubting anything isn't the same as doubting doubt or doubting doubting doubt and so on in an infinite loop waiting for a realization. I don't think, or as someone who understands computers you'll see that as a description of how I think. I can't therefore tell you that I even exist. All I know is that I know nothing. That's the philosophers joke. So when my philosophy is ill equipped I'm stuck realizing things are they way they are and that I must think about them to understand them, then check if my understanding is they way things are and try to remember that that is how things are. This is the scientific method. It fails sometimes so you'll forgive me for talking while still not knowing anything. Truth is supposed to be eternal, though I have never proven this to myself. My philosophy is therefore not set in stone. If there are contradictions in it then they must come from somewhere, a memory problem, a poor realization, the thing itself being self contradictory perhaps. I can not therefore avoid contradicting myself nor can I expect any finite being to be able to do so. All I can expect is self improvement from others and myself, I'm a bitch. Otherwise, of what use are they or I. I have no right to call out others contradictions, I do so only in charity or sense of duty to the truth, should that not contain contradictions. If the truth is self contradictory than neither of us is wrong, if not than we must let objective observations of the thing itself determine who is right. Otherwise we'll form parties that only some people can belong to. However I like parties that anyone can come to so I stick with science. Is this okay? Personal hypocrisy is not socially acceptable and is not therefore not okay ethically. Morally I don't think so. If you contradict yourself we can still be friends. But most people do find it morally objectionable. Unfortunately we live with other people. Your own well being is dependent on how others see you. These ape creatures you share the planet with are much like children, don't you think? They are what they are and most of them do not want to think and are incapable of thinking without outside help. They simply simplify and regurgitate what they were taught. There's no one stopping you from helping these people. But what seems to stop these people from helping you is how pure you are to them. All I can say is know when to run, know when to hide, learn to lie at the right time because without a set in stone philosophy you will contradict yourself as your mind fumbles with complexities it was not designed to handle. Or you can quit this unendable quest for knowledge and believe whatever you like because whomever you like likes it too just like most people do. Which is how so many people are drawn to have a sense of belonging when it comes to political thought. As to why they do it is anyone's guess. I think it has something to do with the voting system favoring the existence of two strong parties over many parties or none at all, a big mess of individuals who believe what they believe. Thanks for thinking.

forever_erratic on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T14:27:05.545635-07:00-0700

No you're not alone in "this mode of introspection," but you are incredibly arrogant about it.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T14:43:44.070562-07:00-0700

How so?

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:38:07.012478-07:00-0700

Asking questions and seeking truth is obviously highly arrogant, dontchyaknow?

ikilledreddit on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-29T00:04:45.649111-07:00-0700

You don't need to put a name on it. Don't align yourself to some doctrine because you feel most attuned to it. Think about the issues at hand, and what you feel should be done about them. You hold your own political beliefs.

FuckTheNWO on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T14:43:50.006384-07:00-0700

This is all stereotypical bullshit...

indgosky on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T16:24:14.101127-07:00-0700

I agree both with this comment AND the intent of the posting... OP has defined the parties based on stereotypical BS that he's eaten up, and not on reality; I find major flaws in almost all of the "definitions". However, I agree that there are no good, viable parties. Given what there is to work with, if OP wants/needs to belong, I think Classical Libertarian (or Classical Liberal) might be the closest thing to satisfaction. If OP's definition of modern Libertarian wasn't so loaded with incorrect stereotypes, he might find that he actually fits there pretty well, too.

boolianlove on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T13:01:59.224887-07:00-0700

pretty hard to start a political movement based on empirical truth able to combine both the Yin of independence and the Yang of Group responsibility without resorting to basic group hate mentality where those who have ambitions for power are laughed out of the forum and only voter happiness provides influence.

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T16:46:27.112019-07:00-0700

I think there should be a *pragmatic party*.

steveklabnik on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T14:30:19.604390-07:00-0700

You might be interested in the [Rationalist Party](http://www.nickpinkston.com/2009/07/a-rationalist-political-platform.html).

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T16:24:22.145106-07:00-0700

I think you've thought things out very responsibly. And I almost identically share a lot of your concerns. I especially agree that there's very little difference between libertarians and republicans in practice. In theory, both parties claim to have certain ideals but when they get in power they just pander to corporate interests. As Chomsky said, we don't have two parties; we have two arms of a single party: the corporate party. I think it's worthwhile to reward the members of say, the democratic party that aren't deviating and penalize the other members of the same party who seem to have abandoned their concern for their constitutients. I've been an independent for most of my life, but I switched to the democratic party because, well, independents can't vote in primaries and stuff like that, so it affords me at least a little more political influence, and it's unlikely we're going to see any third party candidate go anywhere for awhile. Am I happy with the democrats? No. But they're not quite as corrupt and incompetent and short-sighted as the GOP, but they might as well go that way if every time some of them become corporate whores, their supporters abandon the party wholesale. And unfortunately, there is no realistic contender and I'm not wasting my votes when things are close, and in my districts, I know I can influence my representatives -- that's key. For example, Mary Landrieu is shaping up to be more corporatist than progressive but I know I have a better chance of writing to her and changing her direction, than I do voting for some third party fringe candidate who won't get elected. One problem with the current political climate is, like your question infers, most people are ready to write off a particular party and jump on board a whole new bandwagon if it looks appealing, but the truth is, the smaller parties only look appealing because they haven't had the chance to succumb to the inevitable corruption as much as the two majors. It's better to pick a party that is somewhat close *and* has a chance of having influence and power, and try to *fix from within* than it is to just go, "Fuck it! I'm voting for Nader!" Those people really screwed the country and themselves over.

political-animal on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T22:48:53.269821-07:00-0700

>My problems with democrats: > * corrupt Cant argue here.. corruption seems to run throughout most if not all political circles.. and the more powerful a circle is, the more corrupt. I think it runs stronger in other political groups, but that assessment is my own perception. > * pro-drug war Democrats are not pro war. With the exception of a very small minority, democrats fall into two camps where drugs come in. 1. would consider legalizing certain drugs which include marijuana. 2. dont want to legalize drugs, but would prefer to make use not a felony. They would rather support programs to detract people from adopting habits or using drugs, but do not advocate incarceration. > * pro-fed The fed has been seen as a necessary evil. UP until the 90's the fed acted primarily as an independent agency without political motivations or aspirations. In recent years, the fed has grown beyond its britches. People who are vehemently against the fed would rather go back to the gold standard. But that standard doesnt scale and artificial scarcity is replaced by actual scarcity as gold is a finite resource. > * pro-war This is not a traditional democratic value. What was the last war you can think of that a democrat started? Even John F Kennedy who most democrats agree represented them was, in title, a republican. Sure, we bomb the shit out of people on occasions for good reason or even bad political reasons. Wars are traditionally (at least in the last 50 years) a republican trademark. > * not strong enough on the environment Democrats are historically the strongest advocate of environmental protections. With the exceptionof Richard Nixon, who created the EPA, most every bit of legislation to protect the environment ( mostly good, but some bad ), has come from democrats. Bush modified the clean air act during his presidency to be anything but. > * not strong enough for gay rights In large part, the democrats are the only party who are supporting gay rights. Every piece of legislation supporting these rights has been brought forward by a democrat. There was one republican legislator who came around and changed his view to support it and he was roundly chastised by his republican compatriots. > * not strong enough for women's rights Every single piece of womens rights legislation that I can think of has come from democratic legislators. In Obamas speech tonight, he made mention of enacting laws which forbid companies from paying less money to women for the same work. > * not strong enough corporate regulation See corruption. Corporate regulation has been, in the past a cornerstone of democratic legislation. deregulation has, in almost all cases, been more of a republican/libertarian value. > * pro-bailouts Democrats were basically against it when Bush proposed it. They were basically for it when Obama proposed it. The opposite can be said for republicans. I have been basically against it for both administrations. This is especially true for the bank bailouts. I dont believe in too big to fail. Too big to fail is not a traditional democratic value. > * pro-teacher union No argument here. The democrats have always been the strongest supporters of education and the teachers unions. However, being a democrat myself, I agree that this isnt always a good thing. A big problem with the educational system is related to the teachers unions and educational administration. This is also speaking as someone who has had many family members who have been or are still practicing teachers. > * pro corporate personhood This is not a traditional democratic value. The vast majority of democrats would identify themselves as being closer to a populist view rather than a corporatist or capitalist one. > * anti-privacy Democrats want to know what guns you have. Beyond that they care alot about personal privacy and the right against illegal search and seizure.. In the past year, weve seen examples of this possibly changing which is unfortunate but their record is still far better than other political affiliations. Republicans want to know what you do in your house, in your bedroom, who you sleep with, what kind of sex turns you on ( sodomy laws ). They want to prevent you from controlling your body medically. The support wiretapping individuals without a warrant. They dont ask for or require any oversight and are ok with clandestine government tribunals in order to determine guilt of individuals. They dont believe oversight is necessary as long as the government is protecting them from terrorists. > * pro torture This is not a traditional democratic value. Democrats are against torture in any form despite what a couple vocal "democrats" have espoused. See Lieberman > * pro isreal All parties seem to be a little bit too chummy with the AIPAC and other Israeli lobbies. -- So i expect downvotes since a few of the things I wrote could be taken as inflammatory. It sounds to me like your political leanings are more closely aligned with "traditional" democratic principles. You can call yourself whatever you want. When it comes time to vote, you should look at the persons individual stands on issues and decide from there.. Even as a democrat, I do this for every election I vote in. When Nancy Pelosi comes up for re-election, it may be the first time I will opt to vote for the other party candidate.

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T05:47:44.492652-07:00-0700

>Democrats are not pro war. With the exception of a very small minority, democrats fall into two camps where drugs come in. 1. would consider legalizing certain drugs which include marijuana. 2. dont want to legalize drugs, but would prefer to make use not a felony. They would rather support programs to detract people from adopting habits or using drugs, but do not advocate incarceration. I don't see any calls from the Dems to end the drug war or for decriminalization except by maybe a token few (kucinich, gravel, maybe barney frank or grayson). They focus more on prevention sure, but show me where Clinton or Obama has done anything to slow the actions of DEA (other than recent cases involving medical marijuana in states that legalized it). They don't touch the issue b/c they're scared to lose votes. If you're too much of a coward to do what's needed, then you might as well be for it. >The fed has been seen as a necessary evil. UP until the 90's the fed acted primarily as an independent agency without political motivations or aspirations. In recent years, the fed has grown beyond its britches. People who are vehemently against the fed would rather go back to the gold standard. But that standard doesnt scale and artificial scarcity is replaced by actual scarcity as gold is a finite resource. The entire creation of the fed was a political and a corrupt move. Woodrow Wilson (the person responsible for it) had this to say later on: >I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence >This is not a traditional democratic value. What was the last war a democrat ended? A mostly democrat congress approved this recent Iraq war too. Democrats during vietnam overwhelmingly supported it, same thing with the first Iraq war. The party responsible is not just the party that holds the executive branch. >Democrats are historically the strongest advocate of environmental protections. Which makes american environmental protections a complete farce >Every single piece of womens rights legislation that I can think of has come from democratic legislators. In Obamas speech tonight, he made mention of enacting laws which forbid companies from paying less money to women for the same work. Yet every single one of them dance around the word abortion like saying it will give them AIDs. >This is not a traditional democratic value. The vast majority of democrats would identify themselves as being closer to a populist view rather than a corporatist or capitalist one. As they take in lobbyist money hand over fist. I don't think so. >Democrats were basically against it when Bush proposed it. They were basically for it when Obama proposed it Just like the Republicans were all of a sudden against it when Obama opposed it. It's the fucking illusion that there's anyone actually against it accept a token few (paul, kucinich, etc..) >Democrats want to know what guns you have. Beyond that they care alot about personal privacy and the right against illegal search and seizure.. In the past year, weve seen examples of this possibly changing which is unfortunate but their record is still far better than other political affiliations. So that's why ending illegal wiretaps has been on this administration's agenda right? This is why democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Patriot Act and keep voting to renew all of its parts over and over again? >This is not a traditional democratic value. Democrats are against torture in any form despite what a couple vocal "democrats" have espoused. See Lieberman Well a year has passed, and Gitmo still stands. The little liar in the White House talks a good game and some people are just suckers to believe it.

political-animal on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T11:48:52.864643-07:00-0700

I agree with ALMOST every point you make. But thats not the point. Most every point can be traced back to corruption or some corrupt practice. Even fear of not being re-elected and waffling on issues yo believe in because of it could be considered a form of corruption. The point is that What democratic citizens actually believe in doesnt necessarily equate what happens in washington. So while we are cleaning up the system in order to make our government represent us better, we should look at the choices we have now and select from the ones who match our ideology the best. At least in this way the politicians feel SOME pressure to work in our interest. Dealing with the rest of the corrupt nonsense will take more i'm afraid than just voting different people into office. Politics breeds corruption. the politicians should be afraid of us as citizens, but they arent. And that is what we have to change.

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:42:16.096085-07:00-0700

> Most every point can be traced back to corruption ... and corruption can be traced back to the State (power / authority). So, if we do away with the State (power / authority), we do away with the corruption.

political-animal on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T14:03:06.036447-07:00-0700

What do you suggest? Anarchy? I mean there are alot of possibilities. Each one with its own benefits and negative short and long term consequences. I dont think that State (power/authority) is the root cause of corruption. The root cause of corruption has always been self preservation. Power and authority is a means.

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:33:50.661610-07:00-0700

Yes, I do suggest anarchy. And if you take away the means which leads to this corruption, slavery, inequality, and injustice.. than you have a more perfect society that minimizes these iniquities. No system is ever going to perfect. Nobody's suggesting that anarchy is a completely peaceful, free, egalitarian society, but we believe that it's the closest one can get.

political-animal on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:57:47.240079-07:00-0700

I like the concept of anarchy.. In practice it does'nt work. Because in order to get ahead people would form groups. They would take advantage of others. They would have power in their numbers. There would be no law to protect those who didn't have power against those that did. Anarchy wouldnt prevent corruption.. it would just give it a new name and change the players. It would work really well for some and really badly for others. Kind of like what we have now It would be gangs in the street fighting it out in the streets for power. And the rest of us having to sign on with some group in order to be protected from another group. In other words, it would be the wild west of gang warfare. I really do like to wax philosophical about all the possibilities. However, when you do, its important to factor in human nature.

superiority on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-29T05:54:24.268487-07:00-0700

Anarchists made a pretty successful go of transforming society in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War before Stalin set his sights on them. "Human nature" is, of course, a myth.

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:06:58.393704-07:00-0700

>I don't see any calls from the Dems to end the drug war or for decriminalization except by maybe a token few (kucinich, gravel, maybe barney frank or grayson). They focus more on prevention sure, but show me where Clinton or Obama has done anything to slow the actions of DEA (other than recent cases involving medical marijuana in states that legalized it). They don't touch the issue b/c they're scared to lose votes. If you're too much of a coward to do what's needed, then you might as well be for it. You are under the assumption that drug legalization is more populist a construct than in all likelihood, it really is. The drug legalization contingent could be paralleled to the evangelical contingent in terms of statistical significance compared with the rest of the populace, but it is nowhere near as influential. Maybe on the Internet it seems like there's an obvious majority, but I doubt this is the case on a more horizontal level. The truth of the matter is that the drug legalization issue is still up for debate. I consider myself very liberal but I am also realistic and not at all convinced that legalizing a bunch of substances like pot and cocaine would necessarily solve any major problems in society. It might reduce the amount of non-violent offenders in prison, but it would also likely create additional burdens in other social areas including rehab, healthcare, transportation safety, etc. And comparisons between small isolated European countries and how they handle things don't always apply to a big nation like the United States. I'd say the vast majority of Americans are still not in favor of drug legalization and this is the main reason why no major political candidates are taking that position. >What was the last war a democrat ended? A mostly democrat congress approved this recent Iraq war too. Democrats during vietnam overwhelmingly supported it, same thing with the first Iraq war. The party responsible is not just the party that holds the executive branch. You speak as if Democrats are one homogeneous entity that follow a specific, static plan. The reality is *politicians are politicians* - they are influenced by which way public opinion flows. This explains why, the GOP, the supposed party protecting the second amendment, is ironically responsible for more federal gun regulation than all the democrats. The "Clinton Ban" as it is called by conservatives is actually "The Brady Bill" named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary, James Brady. Someone takes a shot at Reagan? Watch how fast all the gun-totin' right wingers line up to restrict firearms despite their previous professed loyalty to 2A. Washington is full of spineless windbags. Instead of dismissing them wholesale, you're better off picking one group that is more closely aligned, and has influence, and trying to influence them, than jumping on board with a marginalized spliter group that has no chance of gaining power.

efrique on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T17:57:48.857696-07:00-0700

One option is to try to change the party nearest your ideas by working to get the ones who are closer to you up in primaries. If there's a party that isn't strong enough on your preferred issues, primaries are a place where you can influence them

bmoseley07 on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T15:40:57.900584-07:00-0700

Yeah right. If you think your vote influences anything I got some money I'm looking to move out of the country.

code_brown on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:05:05.491932-07:00-0700

I find myself in the exact same boat as you. I think that political parties and religions make people irresponsible by packaging agendas and ideas much in the same way the Family pack packages channels on DirecTV, where you get all these ideas for one low price. Buy one and you get them all. For me, the only option was to abandon all political parties and take each issue on a case-by-case basis. It's much more difficult, but it's the only way I feel comfortable.

frogmeat on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-02-15T23:38:46.308579-07:00-0700

Wow, you have a lot of problems with a lot of people. Here's a news flash for you: Life is about compromise. Find the candidate (not party, candidate) that most closely represents your views on the issues most important to you. Vote for him or her. Don't like any of the candidates? Get off your ass and off the internet and run for office.

wza on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T13:50:05.612092-07:00-0700

good. people that subscribe to one political ideology are either idiots or cynical manipulators of idiots looking to profit from said idiocy. the only thing that is set in stone for me is the inherent liberty of all men. i know it's rather anthropocentric, thus not completely rational, but i just really like that idea.

ModernRonin on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T13:45:09.575791-07:00-0700

Maybe you're more of a [Classical Liberal.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) There's no party for us. Probably never will be. It's hard to build a political party around the idea of being against government power. Such a party is pretty much self-negating, and self-destroying, in that it does not seek power - which is exactly what political parties are all about. Frankly, like George Washington, I generally think that all political parties suck. The fact that I don't agree with any political party is probably a good thing. It means I think for myself, instead of being a stupid sheep. Unfortunately, it also means that enacting political change is not something that I will ever be a part of. Frankly, though, given what an unbelievably corrupt, cowardly and often passively evil place DC is... in some ways I'm happier to be a powerless outsider. It means I can criticize them freely, and can't be blamed for their mistakes, nor called as complicit in their actions.

terraserenus on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-27T14:39:51.879353-07:00-0700

I agree with a lot of what you say. I am relegated to voting for who I think will cause the least amount of damage because there is no party that I agree with. I no longer have good expectations for America and will just keep trudging on as disconnected from our current culture as I can be. I don't mean this negatively either. I am content, almost giddy, to not be a part of it. :)

blackjewobamafan on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T03:43:43.904092-07:00-0700

I don't believe in man made global warming. I didn't know that made me a consistent science denier. And your reasoning regarding their (Libertarians) motives > So why do they so actively deny it? Well pollution, especially when it is teeny tiny amount from each one of us, actively damaging the atmosphere.. it's hard to hold someone wholly responsible in a court under their system. Who do you sue? Do you sue everyone ? They're system is simply ill equipped. Do you realize how stupid this sounds as a reason? EDIT: I won't bother replying to the responses. These responses are so full of logical fallacies and hearsay "information" that it's hard to find common ground to discuss. And on r/freethought no less :) You can keep this one, I'm out :)

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T05:49:01.630558-07:00-0700

>I don't believe in man made global warming. I didn't know that made me a consistent science denier. Well it does, b/c science doesn't require your "belief". >Do you realize how stupid this sounds as a reason? Do you realize how deluded most libertarians sound when they come across the one single issue they don't have a perfect market based solution for comes across their table and all of a sudden they opt to deny decades of research done by (or agreed upon) an overwhelming majority scientists and experts? To say they aren't shaping their beliefs in-spite-of-facts, is them simply being dishonest with themselves. Or just being stupid. I'd expect such anti-intellectualism out of the moral majority and the corporatists with vested interests in opposing it, but not out the supposed "intelligent" and "reasoned" conservative party or mode of thought. Mises.org is chock full to the brim of very smart sounding people, until they get on environmental issues and then I feel like I'm reading some quack like http://666ismoney.com . Same for reason.com, lew rockwell, /r/libertarian, and a host of other libertarian media sites and online communities. Sure, there's people in government and in business just salivating at the chance to exploit disaster to financial gain. Bottom feeders follow closely on the heels of disaster, they do so with Haiti, Katrina, the last big eastern Tsunami, etc.. Global warming is no different. And I understand there's perfectly legit criticisms of various government solutions. No doubt. But to outright deny global warning's existence ? To outrigh deny human involvement in its deterioration? Come on. That mode of thought is up there with the anti-vaccination crowd, homeopathy, and those who psychosomatically get "sick" from cell phone towers. There's no basis in reality. Facts is facts. No matter what you believe. I could sit here and try to pull up every study i've ever read, but it'd be fruitless. Most of us, me and i'm guessing you.. aren't scientists. So it becomes a matter of trust. The well reasoned approach IMHO, is to place that trust in that 90+ % of scientists who have done the grueling work, and published their findings in journal after journal. Who've had their work reviewed by their peers in nations all over the world. To not trust this tells me a lot about a person.. that this said person believes in a conspiracy so widespread, with so many of the world's smartest people in on it, that it is completely improbable and tinkering on impossible. And I find that odd, to trust something that sounds so completely batshit insane. It sounds less like the followers of Hayek, Rothbard, and Mises who love to read up on Austrian economics and more like the mental sludge that comes pouring out of World Net Daily.

fromkentucky on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T16:05:05.152611-07:00-0700

Just so you know, the science is *not* settled and the IPCC has been steadily losing credibility over the last few years. I'm not a Climate change Denier (and I despise people who use that term due to the holocaust connotation of the word "denier"), but I cannot rationally endorse legislation based on studies that have been shown fraudulent or simply in error by contemporary, peer-reviewed studies. This is also the Libertarian standpoint. Think whatever you want about the causes of climate change, the science is not settled enough to justify taxes and strict regulations. [The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035. Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html) [This is a problem; the IPCC is supposed to rely only on the peer-reviewed literature...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/texas-state-climatologist-ipcc-ar4-was-flat-out-wrong-relied-on-flawed-wwf-report/) [If the hypothesis is not consistent with observations, it must be rejected. That does not mean that human-induced climate change may or may not be real, but it does mean that (in this case) the magnitude of prospective change has—with high probability—been overestimated. - Dr. Patrick J. Michaels](http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Climate-models-falling-outside-acceptable-scientific-boundaries)

blackjewobamafan on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T07:23:31.657613-07:00-0700

>Well it does, b/c science doesn't require your "belief". Let's get this out of the way first. Do you mean "consistently denying science" or " denying consistent science". I thought the prior, but your reply only makes sense for the latter. Which is it?

rm-rf_linux on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T07:29:18.354640-07:00-0700

I would say the latter, but considering i think the motives are suspect I have every belief that if another scientific issue came up that also violated their philosophical purity the reaction would be similar.

BondsOfEarthAndFire on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T14:18:28.070828-07:00-0700

Even if the environment is not being changed by humans, there's really no reason to be adding anything to the atmosphere that is known to exacerbate the problem. If a forest fire started on its own, that's not a good enough reason to dump gasoline around the edges.

Pilebsa on Not finding where I belong politically..not sure if i want to either

2010-01-28T12:16:23.927167-07:00-0700

>I don't believe in man made global warming. I didn't know that made me a consistent science denier. The vast majority of scientists who are experts in the field conclude that climate change is being affected by humans. If I take my car to a professional mechanic, who has been trained in my particular car's technology and he tells me the problem is one thing, and I say it's something else. Common sense dictates that the guy with more specific training in the field may have a more valid opinion. But OK, maybe this guy is just trying to make a buck. But then if you take your car to every professional mechanic on the planet, and 97% of them agree with the first mechanic's diagnosis, and you *still reject their claims*, then you're just being stupid. If you choose to believe otherwise, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, your position is no different than someone choosing to dismiss evolution because it conflicts with their rabid ideology. Whether you consistently deny science is not as relevant as the fact that you apparently have double standards when it comes to claiming what is the basis of truth in reality. As a result, your opinion is not considered [consistently] credible or rational.