[RawGod]

For a long time I identified as a libertarian, or a paleoconservative. But increasingly I view this as not meaningful. To hold a political or philosophical view means you think you have figured out what would make the world the best place possible if only everyone else would think like you. And I just don't care anymore. It's a verbal game only and expressions of political philosophy are simply attempts at gaining entry to a group or gang that that you feel will give you the greatest benefit.

I haven't reached the point where I can be a true chameleon, like Machiavelli, and change my colors to extract the greatest situational benefit. But this is the logical result of being a high-level player or politician.

But I'm uncomfortable when asked to give a political opinion. I simply feel too detached. I understand why the left wants big government and redistribution, and I understand why others don't. I only ask to be left alone to have freedom and the ability to make money, which is classic libertarianism, yet I have no faith that this is the "best" way or a desire to convince anyone, it is simply the best way for me.

Having taken the Red Pill, where do you stand when those around you are drawing you in to political debate?

[teh_skeeze]

I identify as an anarcho-capitialist, but in political debate I tell people that I am a libertarian socialist. Our society has more than enough resources to make sure that nobody goes without food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. Instead our leaders tell us we need to drop million dollar missiles on a phantom threat hiding in a cave, and give trillion dollar bailouts to the greedy and corrupt because they are "too big to fail".

It's the solipsistic rich folks that are usually born on third base thinking that they hit a triple that denigrate the less fortunate for their lot in life.

In the end it depends on who I'm talking to. I love playing devil's advocate. If I'm talking to liberals, I'm a hardcore conservative. If I'm talking to conservatives, I'm a dirty, liberal hippy.

[speakeasy]

(06-05-2012 02:21 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

I identify as an anarcho-capitialist, but in political debate I tell people that I am a libertarian socialist. Our society has more than enough resources to make sure that nobody goes without food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. Instead our leaders tell us we need to drop million dollar missiles on a phantom threat hiding in a cave, and give trillion dollar bailouts to the greedy and corrupt because they are "too big to fail".

I don't understand what a libertarian socialist is.

[kosko]

^ Because there can be no such thing as a Libetarian socialist. In their ideals capital is untouched with the state minimalism via shrinking it the smallest extent possible. You hit both tenants trying to advocate for personal freedom and social protections.

I don't hold a political card or view. I am simply my own Man, whom is anti-establishment and against their system. A new system is needed as the whole game is flawed and rigged and political compartments just confused and fragment.

Anybody can write a book on what they believe and convince somebody else, somewhere that their idea is the best. This is where all these fragmented political fractions come from. In a natural world everybody will have different views of course and in legitimate democratic systems all of these views are represented.

Things just really need to take a step back to ideals set out in the past, updated to reflect current norms and technology wit ha economic system that is tied to tangible goods and wealth and not abstract shit.

[Parlay44]

I'm only into pussy politics

[vinman]

I'm a Libertarian leaning heavily towards Anarcho- Capitalism.

[Hotwheels]

I voted for Scott Walker.

Twice...

[WestCoast]

Interest in politics = Strong hamster belief that your "opinion matters". (of course there are exceptions).
I haven't voted in my life and don't plan on it

[Fathom]

I found myself getting heavily into politics at one time and it only made me angry and belligerent. I also found liberals to be pathological nutjobs and conservatives impotent pussies. I fit nowhere. If I had my way, I'd live in a militaristic meritocracy where strength is rewarded and weakness stamped out, the inverse of today's Zeitgeist. Pontificating about it is pointless.

Today I have two concerns in life. The first is to make as much money as possible so that I can separate myself from the herd and its devolution as the Kali-Yuga progresses. The second is to enjoy myself doing it, which means enriching myself through travel while experiencing as many women as I can. And that's why I'm here.

One day, I can see myself retreating from society, along with my future family, to indulge in whatever intellectual endeavours strike my fancy, like the protagonist in Huysmans' Against the Grain.

[Capitán Peligroso]

(06-05-2012 03:26 PM)kosko Wrote:  

^ Because there can be no such thing as a Libetarian socialist. In their ideals capital is untouched with the state minimalism via shrinking it the smallest extent possible. You hit both tenants trying to advocate for personal freedom and social protections.

I don't hold a political card or view. I am simply my own Man, whom is anti-establishment and against their system. A new system is needed as the whole game is flawed and rigged and political compartments just confused and fragment.

Anybody can write a book on what they believe and convince somebody else, somewhere that their idea is the best. This is where all these fragmented political fractions come from. In a natural world everybody will have different views of course and in legitimate democratic systems all of these views are represented.

Things just really need to take a step back to ideals set out in the past, updated to reflect current norms and technology wit ha economic system that is tied to tangible goods and wealth and not abstract shit.

Wikipedia entry on Libertarian Socialism for those of you who may want to learn more about it. It might seem like a contradiction on the surface, but once you unpack the political theory behind it, it becomes much more plausible.

[raliv]

I try not to be political. I used to be pretty political though. Even met Ron Paul. It's a time waster though. I don't vote and don't see the use of it anymore. I pay attention to politics to kill boredom mostly. When football season starts I ignore politics almost completely.

[WesternCancer]

I prefer to stay out of political discussion. I don't know much about it and it is pointless arguing at the level I would be discussing it. Most people can't have a civil argument and the time reading news sites/sources can be spent in a much better way. ie. banging fly girls.

[RawGod]

Interesting that most of us seem to be on the same page. Leaning towards libertarianism but essentially opting out of the whole process. If my home country totally went to shit, I'd quietly move somewhere else, not organise protests about it. We only live once and I want to be making money, conquering women and having great experiences.

[kosko]

(06-05-2012 05:17 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 03:26 PM)kosko Wrote:  

^ Because there can be no such thing as a Libetarian socialist. In their ideals capital is untouched with the state minimalism via shrinking it the smallest extent possible. You hit both tenants trying to advocate for personal freedom and social protections.

I don't hold a political card or view. I am simply my own Man, whom is anti-establishment and against their system. A new system is needed as the whole game is flawed and rigged and political compartments just confused and fragment.

Anybody can write a book on what they believe and convince somebody else, somewhere that their idea is the best. This is where all these fragmented political fractions come from. In a natural world everybody will have different views of course and in legitimate democratic systems all of these views are represented.

Things just really need to take a step back to ideals set out in the past, updated to reflect current norms and technology wit ha economic system that is tied to tangible goods and wealth and not abstract shit.

Wikipedia entry on Libertarian Socialism for those of you who may want to learn more about it. It might seem like a contradiction on the surface, but once you unpack the political theory behind it, it becomes much more plausible.

I still find it too Utopian. As it does not address what to do with capital. You work freely and freely posses things but you need some structure to determine how capital is allocated. You will end up with a concentration of capital and thus a repression of wealth for evreybody.

I tell bright eyes libertarians to go book a ticket to my homeland. Go to Nigeria if you want to go live in a place where your own your own with little govt intervention. Many parts of Africa are like this and are hell and ripe for exploitation. If you can't control capital you set up another form of control.

Its simply a blind step back into feudalism I feel. These are my views tho. People can pursue what ideals they see fit.

[blurb]

I generally stay away from politics, but it can be interesting to research and learn something. Unless one is planning on becoming a politician, I don't see any reason to get involved or hung up over anything.

How many happy and successful people do you see obsessing over politics?

It's the frustrated and unhappy people that get swept up in "political movements," even though some of those movements may have been right or wrong.

[Deluge]

I'm very cynical politically, but I'd describe myself as Third Way which is centre-left but with a pro-capitalist/market bent. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Kevin Rudd are usually associated with this term.

Both via Wikipedia

Quote:

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.It emphasizes commitment to: balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment.

Quote:

Former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first speech to parliament in 1998 stated:
Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all. We are not afraid of a vision in the Labor Party, but nor are we afraid of doing the hard policy yards necessary to turn that vision into reality. Parties of the Centre Left around the world are wrestling with a similar challenge—the creation of a competitive economy while advancing the overriding imperative of a just society. Some call this the `third way'. The nomenclature is unimportant. What is important is that it is a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives represented opposite. It is in fact a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives.

[ThatNorwegianGuy]

I can relate to OP; I'm ideologically speaking a libertarian and practically speaking a bit of an apolitical cynic. I'm certainly no political activist, and like OP, I can see why people would support policies that I'm against, and understand where they're coming from. Also, the apolitical cynicism more or less stems from the fact that the ideas that I'm supporting aren't exactly mainstream, particularly not in PC, center-left Scandinavia, and I'm certainly not deluded enough to believe that my activism will change this.

[Timoteo]

I try to stay abreast of issues, and form an opinion about them. I'm not big on getting into political discussions with strangers on the internet, or friends for that matter because you know where it leads. However, I do think it's important to stay engaged, and to dig beyond what talking heads on tv or the internet say, as you know in today's media climate, everyone has their own slant. Sometimes that slant is actually fact, but often it's not.

[Sentrix]

I'm definitely right-of-center, but I struggle to use terms like "libertarian" or "conservative" at least in American politics today. There's no question the Obama presidency has divided the country (for reasons both sides are at fault for) and I feel like these labels for ideology carry a lot more weight than they used to. I could care less about being judged by others, but at the same time if I refer to myself as a libertarian or conservative, a lot of time I'll be misunderstood, or someone will assume my stances on various issues just based on the labels, and it's not always correct. Usually I have to take a few sentences to summarize what I really believe in, rather than just throw out one word and let that define me.

And, like Timoteo said above, staying engaged is a big issue for me and I feel like the shit-flinging going on between both sides (be it through the media, congress, or presidential candidates) is a real turn-off for would-be voters, people who are trying to get interested, and unfortunately also younger voters like myself.

[Rah]

I'll start caring about politics once I find myself in a position of substantial influence or wealth. I spent my college years getting all riled up about the state of things and found it was a gigantic waste of time. You're better off spending your time building something than "participating" in politics, because then your opinion might actually carry some weight.

[Menace]

I used to identify as liberal, then as I got older, less so. I swore I would never vote Republican, but with the "red-pill", feminism's role in society, and Obama's pandering to women, I'm not sure how I can vote for him. There's this ad going around sponsored by the National Organization for Women saying how Romney is bad for women because he would do this and that, and I'm thinking...hmm these are all reasons to vote FOR him. Funny how things work.

[Andy_B]

I don't identify with any particular political ideology or party.

I also don't debate politics on Facebook or forums.

I do, however, have several individual political beliefs that I'm very firm in:

1. Drug bans are fucking retarded. Possessing drugs is the definition of a victimless crime. Maybe people in users' families are harmed emotionally when the druggie self-destructs, but so are family members of alcoholics and fast food addicts. And anyway, how are you helping anybody or their family by hauling them off to jail to get assraped? I do think selling drugs should be regulated though. Not banned, just regulated.

2. Innovation and wealth are more important than equality. Inequality largely exists because only a handful of people generate real value. the creation of innovative products helps the poor live better. The poor are better off when they eat well at 0.001% the net value of a super-rich elite, than when they starve at 1% of the net value of an only modestly rich elite.

3. Religion is absolutely retarded, especially the evangelical bullshit. Here's the only proof you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

[R Smoov]

Nah, I'd rather read on game than worry about two men argue over shit.

Politicians these days have the swag of a Highschool Student Government club. People that pretend to give a shit about you only so they can win that election. They never care if you win in life though as soon as they are elected.

Why argue over issues you cannot fix? I'd rather argue if I should balls up and talk to the bitches near me, whether I should say fuck buying v-necks at Walmart since they are too big on my little ass, or should I stop fucking my fuckbuddy because we do the same dumbass position on the beach and she wont let me doggystyle or anal her.

And the answer to all of those questions are yes. Can I get Governor Penisuck elected or fix the economy with the 60 dollars I have? Nah I cant fix that. Argue about your own life, not that rando in a suit talking about the war in Iraq.

[Samseau]

There's quite a bit of immaturity here. People think that you can abstain from politics and be better off from it, but in the long run political decisions will control your life.

To name one example:

Right now the marriage laws are shit. Millions of men have decided to avoid marriage and either become players and get out of America or do something else with their lives in response to the bad laws.

If the marriage laws weren't so bad, do you think there'd be so many men on a player's forum?



I follow politics but I don't try to be an activist. I don't try to convince others either. However, when someone asks me for my opinion I give it to them straight but don't expect any change.

I believe Governments around the world have too much power, and are enforcing too many destructive policies, and that the First World will suffer greatly for it.

Quote:

I'll start caring about politics once I find myself in a position of substantial influence or wealth. I spent my college years getting all riled up about the state of things and found it was a gigantic waste of time. You're better off spending your time building something than "participating" in politics, because then your opinion might actually carry some weight.

This is also the truth. If you're just a regular joe, nothing you do will be effective.

[Indefatigable]

Hardcore leftist. I think libertariansm to be a really bad idea.