/politics/ - News & Politics

I'm a left-leaning libertarian/classical liberal because I believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility, and civil liberties and despise being controlled and authoritarianism in general. Why is my belief correct? Well it probably isn't, but it understands history, society, and the human condition and grants the individual the freedom to live their life the way they see fit. I'm for free markets with limited regulation (actual free market capitalism, not a plutocracy) and limited government and taxes. I think the governments job to enforce laws regarding violent crime and theft, ensure environmental protection and sustainability (we kind of all live here), and provide public infrastructure and basic education and healthcare. I believe taxes should be low and welfare limited. I don't like welfare queens and dindus or the sociopathic top 0.1% that controls our government and manipulates everyone else. I'd just like smaller government and a return to (actual) free markets and the US constitution.

>>11159

>Morality is objective and based on logic

how?

>>11159

>Fags are only accepted if they try to emulate that.

I agree that a traditional heterosexual relationship is more likely to lead to social and economic stability, but if you believe in "a universal right to seek a dignified, self-sufficient and ultimately satisfying way of life" then why do you think fags should have to emulate that to be accepted? I also agree what you said about society so why do you want to force people to conform societal norms?

>Nature is only good from a safe distance, all-organic fags are idiots.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

>>11163

Immoral decisions are the result of a lack of foresight.

The closest thing we know to pure evil, psychopathy, is linked to poor memory. It adds up.

>>11164

It's not about conforming to norms for the sake of it, but about not cutting the branch you sit on, or not shitting where you eat. For any group of people, any deviation from a "one for one" approach creates more misery than it can make up for.

This is what the 'dignified' was specifically inserted there for. I don't care for people without the capacity to see the bigger picture, even though I wouldn't shoot them for it unless they insisted on dragging me down with them. You wouldn't defend someone's "right" to shit on the streets, now would you?

And in case you were living under a rock for the last 50 years, fags fagging it up as usual is the commonly accepted norm. Since you agree with what I said about society, remember that we're way closer to Brave New World than Victorian England.

As for the other sentence, are you trying to tell me you've never met one of those people? You know, those who picked up a high school biology book once, read some clickbait about GMOs, pink slurry, good bacteria and a lot of other buzzwords, and think that's a good reason to ditch any hygiene standards because their immune systems will bail them out? Spoiler alert, they won't. Live in medieval conditions and you'll die from a medieval condition. Some of them live long enough to pose as authorities on tree-hugging, giving wonderful advice such as using human waste to fertilize food. Yes, I've met someone who genuinely believed that's a good idea. And even worse, some of them end up handling your food at the mom&pop store you pick up your veggies at. Scary. I'd rather take my chances with the mass produced stuff, and no amount of moralfagging or scaremongering will change my mind on that.

While I hate the fact that there are few places left that aren't packed with telephone lines and other reminders that all land is claimed and quartered, and would love to live as far away from the grid as possible, I'd still grow all my stuff indoors, in a controlled environment, using as many gifts of science as I can get away with. There's no reason not to.

>>11175

>It's not about conforming to norms for the sake of it, but about not cutting the branch you sit on, or not shitting where you eat. For any group of people, any deviation from a "one for one" approach creates more misery than it can make up for.

>This is what the 'dignified' was specifically inserted there for. I don't care for people without the capacity to see the bigger picture, even though I wouldn't shoot them for it unless they insisted on dragging me down with them. You wouldn't defend someone's "right" to shit on the streets, now would you?

>And in case you were living under a rock for the last 50 years, fags fagging it up as usual is the commonly accepted norm. Since you agree with what I said about society, remember that we're way closer to Brave New World than Victorian England.

The thing is, who decides what the branch is and what it needs? Who determines what the bigger picture is? Some nanny statist thinks you posting a pink haired kawaii girl promotes pedophilia and the objectification of women and someone else things that missionary sex for the sole purpose of procreation is the only acceptable way to have sex. Someone else thinks open borders, mass immigration, "diversity", and "tolerance" is the key to a successful society and that only the government should have guns. Someone else thinks we should live in a Christan theocracy and that the earth is 6000 years old. How do you get people to decide what's logical and good for society and should be made law and what happens when the law directly opposes a persons ability to live the life that suits them?

>As for the other sentence, are you trying to tell me you've never met one of those people? You know, those who picked up a high school biology book once, read some clickbait about GMOs, pink slurry, good bacteria and a lot of other buzzwords, and think that's a good reason to ditch any hygiene standards because their immune systems will bail them out? Spoiler alert, they won't. Live in medieval conditions and you'll die from a medieval condition. Some of them live long enough to pose as authorities on tree-hugging, giving wonderful advice such as using human waste to fertilize food. Yes, I've met someone who genuinely believed that's a good idea. And even worse, some of them end up handling your food at the mom&pop store you pick up your veggies at. Scary. I'd rather take my chances with the mass produced stuff, and no amount of moralfagging or scaremongering will change my mind on that.

I agree, a lot of them are retarded and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about (lul, gluten makes you fat), but I trust nature more than a corporation who's main objective is to make money (regardless of the societal cost) and the governmental agencies who work for them. I'm for GMOs, but I don't trust corporations and the FDA when they tell me their specific modification is safe given their track record. I also despise the whole copyrighting of genes aspect. I think if we fixed government corruption, campaign financing, and held corporations accountable for their lies there wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm for organic because pesticides are bad for your health and the environment. Pumping livestock full of anti-biotics and growth-hormones has proven health and environmental consequences. I'm all for embracing scientific advancements, but spraying our food with chemicals, hormones, and anti-biotic and damaging our bodies, gene pool, and the environment doesn't sit right with me. I'm not some vegan hipster, but eating natural foods (grains, starches, meats, dairy, vegetables, fruits) instead of all sorts of processed crap, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors, and chemicals known to cause cancer is usually better for your health. Using natural shampoos and soaps is usually better for the environment and your skin. No need to have dreadlocks and shower once a week.

>While I hate the fact that there are few places left that aren't packed with telephone lines and other reminders that all land is claimed and quartered, and would love to live as far away from the grid as possible, I'd still grow all my stuff indoors, in a controlled environment, using as many gifts of science as I can get away with. There's no reason not to.

I agree on using science to make the most of what we have, but I disagree with totally dominating the planet and taking over everything. Bio-diversity is dwindling, species are going extinct at an exponential rate, air, water, and soil quality is degrading, environmental health problems are on the rise, entire ecosystems are disappearing. We're destroying the planet. We should use science to help us live sustainably. Right now putting the planet further and further into debt and selling out the quality of life of future generations to fulfill our own greed.

>>11150

>Give a one paragraph statement of your political beliefs and what you believe.

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

My ideal system would be maximum democracy. I would want a system where you don't just vote for a person or group, but rather you can at any point in time change who represents you or chose who represents you on which type of issue and whenever you really want to, cast the vote yourself on any issue. A system like this would pretty much eliminate corruption, gerrymandering, secret trade deals and a few more things. I have already thought out quite a bit of the system, the only limitation I find is that it on a more personal level, it would be relatively easy to have control over close family. However with good laws and law enforcement, large scale abuse of this could be avoided, and in the end, every system will have some issues you just can't get around.

I would not say I am very much left or right leaning. I am more on the left of the spectrum, but I care more about the underlying system working well than what actually comes out of it. With the right system, the right decisions will be made the majority of the time. I am also a capitalist in economy and socialist in social issues. I am very much anti copyright and anti patents.

>>11188

>My ideal system would be maximum democracy.

Have you looked into Anarcho-communism?

>>11182

>words

You're trying to corner me into a relativist "nobody is right" trap which I have to reject at face value if I am to keep some of my sanity. Otherwise I'd spend the rest of my life arguing obvious things, or sitting locked up in my basement, too afraid to have any opinion because someone might not like it. OP asked, I spoke out.

You're also implying I want to force people to do anything other than stay the fuck away from me. That still doesn't mean I can't look down upon them, they sure aren't hesitant to do the same.

>words words words

I never said I trust corporations or don't read labels.

>I disagree with totally dominating the planet and taking over everything

And I never said anything like that either. Get fucked, sophist. Nothing I say will be good enough for you.

>>11190

If you mean communism as the economic system of choice, I am not a fan. I am very much into capitalism. I feel it has a proven track record of actually working and is by far the best system for rapid development of new products, techniques and improving both quality and quantity of items. Capitalism is like evolution. The strongest survive and you accept that the rest dies out. Which is why you want a strong social system to cover up for that. Giving people many chances to try and be the best, while also giving them enough incentive to do so.

I also do not believe that anarchy would be compatible with the democracy I want. I do believe you want some basic rules to provide a relative safety from any single person/group taking over.

>>11191

>You're trying to corner me into a relativist "nobody is right" trap which I have to reject at face value if I am to keep some of my sanity.

I'm not trying to push that, I was giving examples (most of which are objectively false). I don't see how you'd get people to agree and respect what is or isn't moral or legal when people can't even agree on simple things despite the evidence, relativity be dammed.

>You're also implying I want to force people to do anything other than stay the fuck away from me. That still doesn't mean I can't look down upon them, they sure aren't hesitant to do the same.

I took "Fags are only accepted if they try to emulate that." as legal matter considering the discussion is about political beliefs. If you look down on them but grant them the same legal rights then I see no problem with that.

>I never said I trust corporations or don't read labels.

Sorry if I implied that. I was countering your point that even though there are a lot of retards out there, a lot of health and environmental arguments regarding food and other lifestyle choices are based in science and have plenty of evidence to support them.

>And I never said anything like that either. Get fucked, sophist. Nothing I say will be good enough for you.

You're right, I was assuming things. I was countering the "there's no reason not to" part because there is. I was saying that we should embrace technology in a sustainable way.

>>11150

No man can own another man, and all men are subject to the same rules. A mob does not make the morally reprehensible acceptable. Anyone who denies this is likely either ignorant, a sociopath, or power hungry. The underlying ideology? Pacifism, Christianity, and Anarchy.

Why the fuck I decided to pay this shit board any mind is beyond me.

>>11197

>christianity

>anarchy

pick one

>>11310

You can't be a true Christian without being an anarchist. It's hypocritical.

>>11192

There's nothing in your post I necessarily disagree with, I would encourage you to look into it anyways. It sounds like you'd be more of a fan of market socialism, but I think most forms of anarchism/socialism would be more democratic than a purely capitalist democracy. To be clear, I'm not advocating for USSR style Stalinism or anything like that, I'm quite critical of modern communist regimes. Anarchy isn't necessarily 'no rules', it's more concerned with leaders being held accountable for their actions. Although there is a 'no rules' faction, they're called primativists and they probably suffer from brain damage. There's also the "no leaders ever, total horizontalism" types, but the ones I've talked to were very poorly read on theory.

Just out of curosity, what's your opinion on worker cooperatives as a business model? There have been a number of successful large companies that have tried this and the result is maximum democracy in the workplace.

>>11316

How so?

>>11150

Humans aren't free because they are too weak and are dependent on social systems to survive. Therefore, we must combine political activism with technological growth so that we can create and decentralize advanced subsistence technology such as additive manufacturing and AGI, and improve the human machine through transhumanism, with the ultimate far off goal of becoming post-human space faring machines durable enough to transcend our necessary dependence on the social systems that both protect us and constrain our individual choices.

AFRICA FOR AFRICANS, ASIA FOR ASIANS, White countries for everybody? Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the Third World pours into EVERY white country, and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of Third-Worlders and quote-unquote "assimilating" with them. Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country, and ONLY white countries, to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the Final Solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a NaziWhoWantsToKillSixMillionJews. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

>>11318

I understand that anarchy doesn't really mean no leaders or no rules, but in many cases, I feel that anarchy means creating a power vacuum, without having rules in place to fill that power vacuum safely. It is unlikely that a system would be created in which groups would not start to consolidate power very soon, and without strong rules enforced by a system, these groups can become too powerful for any of the benefits of anarchy to still be there. Soon the freedom of the few at the top is worth more than that of those at the bottom, and you end up with a very despotic state.

I still am no fan of communism. I see communism (in the economic sense) as a system where one entity attempts to find the best possible thing to do, and then have everybody do it. I feel communism is a serial task. First you figure out the best type of basketball you can, then you make the design, then you have 100 workers make it. Capitalism is a parallel task. You want a basketball, 100 people start working on it individually, some make good basketballs, some make bad basketballs. But in the end it goes a lot faster, and it allows many more attempts. Many improvements will be small, and while it probably won't take longer to get to the near perfect basketball, there will have been a lot more time wasted on non perfect basketballs. But some great advantages are that you at least had a reasonable basketball quite soon, which could already kickstart an industry on its own. You have tested many more possible basketballs, some of them which may end up being good for their very own reason.

I believe a workers cooperative should work well. However for the best possible functionality, you need a good system in place. There are many rules in a democratic system, and most of them are in place to protect the system from being degraded by hostile actions. We cast our ballots in secret because it protects us from government watching who we voted on and persecuting us for it. We often have paper ballots so that votes checked by independent reviews. A company run by a workers cooperative would likely need many of the same rules that a governmental democracy has to ensure that the it does not devolve.

I strongly believe that a great dictator will in many cases be by far better than your average democracy, its just that its is very hard to get a great dictator, it is nearly impossible to keep him good when massive unpunishable corruption is at every corner, and even if you had one, its even harder to guarantee the next one will be as good.

I strongly subscribe to the theory that every political action is about getting more power. Which is why I believe maximum democracy is the best way possible. You are a dictator that wants more power? Do the thing that makes those few people that grant you power like you more. In a democracy however, you basically only get power if 50%+ of the people like you, which often means if you want to get more power, you need to do things that make at least 50% of your population happy. If you have a 1000 citizens unders you, and you you have a 1000 dollars to spend on getting more power, if your country is a dictatorship, give those 5 people you depend upon 200 dollars and you will get more power. If you have a strong democracy, give at least those 50% which give you power 2 dollars, but more often than not, thats nearly impossible, so give the entire population 1 dollar instead. And most often, in a dictatorship, you are indeed talking about straight up giving money to those that grant you power, while in a democracy, you will chose to spend money on things that improve the lives of people. For example health care. And there seems to be actual evidence of this. Comparing, even very poor countries, with each other when they have as main difference their degree of democracy, you will mainly find that those that are less democratic have a much higher rate of mothers dying during birthing than in those that are much more democratic. The leaders chose to invest in better health care instead of their few friends.

This thread is going to be self-aggrandizing bullshit that nobody's going to bother to read through.

Very centrist Libertarian. The most important thing to any functioning society is the ability to debate and discuss any ideas in any way without fear, including fear of losing your job. Death of discourse and debate is death of freedom, including anything being "too sacred" or "off limits" to discuss, make fun of, and deliberate. Everything else worth fighting for and every other right stems from this idea.

>>11361

>This thread is going to be self-aggrandizing bullshit that nobody's going to bother to read through.

I'm reading, anon.

>>11367

I'm not. I didn't even read your post.

>>11379

I read yours. Jesus loves you.

We should all have the same opportunity to succeed, just not the same outcome.

Everyone should be allowed to say and believe what they want and be treated equally under the law. (No personal belief bullshit for getting out of doing things against the law)

The government should help those in need but to try to make sure it's temporary.

For example, financial student aid is great because it allows people to get an education and if they do good, get a good job and eventually make enough and pay enough in taxes to pay the government back.

On the other hand people who's only disability is being fat and lazy should not get government help for being fat and lazy.

Oh and the government should always try to help push science forward and keep the environment clean for the betterment of it's citizens.

>>11344

I have came to the same conclusion when I tried to find out what I really want. Is there a name to this exact political stance? Transhumanism in general is kind of autistic and have some traits of a religion at this point.

>>11442

Transhumanist is the ideology. You could call yourself a socialist if technology is simply thengoal rather than then the solution. I for one do not consider myself a transhumanist simply because the technology requirement might be unfeasible or too far off in the future. There's also the quasi-religious element as you mentioned.

White European people do have to have the leading role when it comes to current world matters and the fact that the planet is increasingly growing more unstable is due to them losing that grip. Adding to that, I firmly believe the real battle is not necessarily between races, but between lifestyles. Namely, the self-sacrificing, nurturing, creative, hard-working, chivalric, honest, long-term gain "Aryan" lifestyle, and the ruthless, dishonest, self-serving, parasitic, destructive, short-term gain "Jewish" lifestyle more commonly found among the people of colored races. Every race is capable of adopting either of those lifestyles, and it's up to "Aryan" people (not necessarily just Whites) to spread those values over the "Jewish" ones. That said, I don't believe Whites kicking every non-White (even the law-abiding legals) out of their countries will solve things in the long run, unless they fix themselves and their lifestyles first, else they'll just go on consuming each other (ex: in-fighting between WN movements with no signs of trying to reach common ground). This whole view of mine that "the real fight is within you and not with the Jews" also stems from the fact that the fall of the Third Reich wasn't necessarily due to Semitic elements but from within Germany itself, according to what I've read on the subject. Hitler happened to have great respect and consideration for the senior officers (the Prussian nobles) in charge of the Oberkommando des Heeres (German High Command) at the time and did not want to replace them, when there were plenty of fresher and younger veterans available. That decision ultimately led to a series of betrayals over the course of the war which cost Germany the Eastern front and ultimately the war itself. These nobles, who were fearful of losing their status & power and/or considered that the Allies weren't currently trying to exterminate their ethnicity and their way of life, wanted to ally with the West in a misguided attempt to fight against Communism and preserve their elite status, even going so far as to betray their own countrymen. Ultimately, Germany crumbled not by the hands of Jews (a noticeable bunch who were fighting FOR the Third Reich as you might be well aware of) but by the internal sabotages of a few (White) aristocrats in senior positions of leadership, who were not removed because Hitler was too soft on them, too nice, until it was much too late. So as a tl;dr: Always strive to fix what's inside before worrying about stuff on the outside. The Jews are but a symptom, not necessarily the cause of your problems.

>>11442

I called it "Techno-Decentralism", but that's kind of spergy too, though that comes with the territory, I think.

>>11527

>You could call yourself a socialist if technology is simply thengoal rather than then the solution.

Socialism is about abolishing private property.

You can't decentralize advanced subsistence technology if you don't have private ownership of the means of production. It's more like distributism where widely spread private property is the goal.

>>11192

>>11318

>Although there is a 'no rules' faction, they're called primativists and they probably suffer from brain damage.

Please, primitivists aren't all the same. I believe in rules, I just really dislike modernism.

I would define myself as a liberal-conservative. I believe in a limited welfare state but I believe that the budget must be balanced through tax rises/cuts and budget cuts as appropriate. I also am moderate on some social issues - for example I believe in abortion in the first two terms and I am not opposed to the concept of gay marriage, just it being imposed on churches. I also think that we should largely move to nuclear fission and green energy and invest in nuclear fusion technology as these are less likely to run out within our lifetimes than coal/oil/gas. I think that we should also expand our military so that US Presidents will have to take responsibility for their own mistakes instead of blaming it on us being "freeriders" or whatever the fuck.