I know that the other website was mostly left leaning, at least superficially. I feel like the kind of people who are attracted to Hubski are more likely to have well thought out political views, so let's hear it!
I think that's a self defeating attitude. If voting didn't work, why would the rich spend their untold billions on campaigns and media ads that are only minimally successful at swaying anyone's vote? Look at Evangelical Christians, they have their interests represented heavily in congress, every state legislature, and they totally control many local governments. Not just because they vote when they have something at stake, but they vote every election, like clockwork. Why would a congressperson go after millennial votes if they'll vote during the presidential election, and then leave them hanging during the off year elections?
I've voted democrat, republican, independent, and third party in my life time. But I would probably be labeled a moderate, and a socialist at worst. I believe in things like universal healthcare and education. I also believe that we need to start having serious talks about a "basic income" as the future gets closer, and automation starts ramping up. I'm also a huge proponent of space exploration, and think we need more unmanned and manned missions. Those are my more liberal and socialist main points. For my less than popular opinions and possibly more "right" views; I believe in trade deals and countries working closer together. I see the TPP and the TTIP as good things for the US, which seems to be extremely unpopular right now. I believe in our military in the US. Not so much the current mission, as obviously I don't support the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, but more it's scope and role in jobs, and innovation, and the capabilities to do a lot of things other nations can not. We can project a threat of retaliation anywhere we want in the world which has brought some stability, but more importantly we can project aid. Whenever there is an earthquake, or tsunami, or other major natural disaster, we are generally there first. Not all of my tax dollars for the military are going towards bombing people. And let's be real, if the US wasn't the top military power, and say, Russia or China was, how would people feel about that? Better? Or worse? Someone has to be the most powerful, and all things considered I don't think the US has been terrible with that power. That being said, I think the DoD budget is far too high and could be better spent on things like healthcare, education, and space exploration. All things considered, I'm open minded and try to stay away from labels, and I don't vote a specific way every time. It really depends on the current political climate and what's going on. I've voted for republicans in the past that were great people, but the current tea party trend? Donald Trump? Bobby Jindal? Ughh... no thanks. That party is a joke right now.
According to Facebook I'm in favor of miniature American flags for some, and abortion for others. And Quincy, M.E. is one of my favorite shows. Even on the internet religion and politics are best left as topics not discussed in polite company. I try to obfuscate my beliefs as much as possible because I'm not as smart as I want people to think and because it causes unnecessary friction when they know I think the gays should get married while I live in the South. I'm pretty sure I'm so good at this that people who know me well think I'm gay because I don't date out of courtesy towards women who need no part in my bullshit. It's really pretty funny. I'm politically misanthropic.
Also, does the set of 'well thought out political opinions' exclude 'left-leaning political opinions?'A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as "state" and "society" and "government" have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.
TANSTAAFL. This is why I tend to think poorly of punishments leveled against corporations or government agencies. It's pretty much meaningless to me to punish these ideas which cannot suffer. If a company screws people over, the specific people involved in that should be dealt with, not just the company itself. But I wouldn't say that rational anarchy guides all or even most of my political views. Elsewhere, I'm guided by Humanism, which is largely compatible with rational anarchy.
True, those are both concepts I find... compatible with me? But I do think you can punish corps - even if it is just to tell the people they are comprised of that they fucked up. Like the banks that were fined for manipulating the libor - the people in charge learned not to do that again, since in the end their profits suffered for it. I don't know, maybe I'm a bad rational anarchist?
Did they? Do you remember back, oh, about 2 years ago in 2013, when overdrafts and the related fees started to become a big issue? You probably do, because your bank (if you have one, and it's in the US) would've sent you a couple pages' worth of disclosures explaining when they would pay overdrafts, and when they wouldn't, but you had to opt in in order to have any of them paid going forward. That was a good thing for consumers. A related issue to this is something called "high-to-low transaction ordering." This happens when your account becomes overdrawn but maybe you have more transactions pending or you initiated more transactions before your bank caught up with you and stopped approving transactions because you were overdrawn (or maybe your bank just let you keep overdrawing). So of course, you as a consumer already understand that means that you are going to go more negative. And every time you went more negative you'd get charged another fee (probably $35 but depends on the bank). Well banks got smart and the practice back in those days, to maximize the fees you would have to pay, was to rearrange the posting order of your transaction so the highest one went first. So let's say that you had $49 in the bank at 8 AM Monday morning. You buy breakfast at 8:30 AM for $3. Then you bought lunch for $5.95. Then a $200 transaction at 1pm (landlord cashed your utilities check late and you missed it). Then you bought candy at 3 PM for $6. Then one $50 transaction went through at 5 PM. Rationally, if these posted in order, this would be your balance throughout the day: $49 at 8 AM $46 at 8:30 $40.05 after lunch -$159.95 after that damn check (BAM! First over draft fee. Real balance is now -$194.95) -$200.95 after candy (SECOND fee = real balance now -235.95) -$285.95 after the last $50 transaction (THIRD fee - real balance now -$320.95) Here's what the bank would do - "high to low processing": 8 AM your balance = $49 Wait til end of day for all transactions to post. Now, take them out in order of size - largest to smallest (hence high to low): First out= $200. Now you are -$151. FIRST fee. -$186 Next = $50. Now you are - $236. SECOND fee. -$271 Now = $6. You are -$276. THIRD fee. -$311 Now = $5.95. You are -$316.95. FOURTH fee. -$351.95 Now the last, your tiny little $3. That was your first actual transaction of the day by the way. -$354.95. FIFTH fee. $389.95 The bank just made an easy $70 by fucking up the order of the transactions you put through today. And you're that much more in the whole. And even if you had an overdraft line of credit, chances are you'd have to pay the following fees: a transfer fee every time you accessed the line of credit (usu $10-ish); another fee just for going in the LOC (have seen $35ish); plus interest & finance charges (depends on your rate). So anyway the CFPB and all those regulatory folks got in a big huff about it. Here, read more. I could swear there were some consent orders issued which basically is a regulatory agency going "You done fucked up and stop it!" and also involves fines and punishments against the bank (like they are not allowed to expand/build more branches in additional states until it is lifted). Can't actually find those but know there were lawsuits. Anyway. All the big banks were scared. Most of them realized they were going to get boned by someone or other if they didn't stop so they have. Also maybe someone up the chain realized they were being shitty when they did this. (But probably not.) Despite all the lawsuits flying and consent orders and fines and so on going on in 2013, one or two banks who had the practice were able to escape CFPB and regulatory scrutiny over this through convenient loopholes. These banks, despite being well aware that their overdraft practices were abusive and problematic and essentially would not stand under regulatory scrutiny, were able to dodge said scrutiny for the time being due to their size categorization (previously, they'd been governed by a smaller regulator, who had also been shitty, and although that regulator had been dissolved by this point in time, they were able to argue they shouldn't be expected to hold up to the bigger, more stringent regulatory agency's standards due to their historical status). So they got away with what they were doing scott-free - for the moment and by a technicality. Did those banks then stop their abusive practice and thank the lords they'd scraped by on a hair? Nope. They refused to stop those practices. So yeah. Not so sure about banks learning from the mistakes of other banks. More like, "patting themselves on the back for not getting caught, and continuing to tempt the devil with their other hand." here you go, bank of america got charged a shit ton for this practice wells fargo was the other one So like, two of the Big Four banks were getting slapped upside and downside with multi-million dollar lawsuits and settlements, and these little rinky dink regional banks figure, "Hey! Since we're not as big as them, we can get away with it!" Seriously, I shake my head.Like the banks that were fined for manipulating the libor - the people in charge learned not to do that again, since in the end their profits suffered for it.
You can't hurt a corporation. You can dismantle it, you can make it unprofitable, but it cannot suffer. A corporation cannot know anything except to pursue goals, the key goal usually being profit, and more profit than it's competitors. You have to punish individuals, specifically those individuals most responsible for corporate errors.
I'm extremely moderate. I think that the Republicans have some good points. I think that the Democrats have some good points. I think that the independents, socialists, and libertarians all have some good points. I like to appreciate everything right a party does, but I don't hate any party for one thing that they did wrong. When it comes to most topics, I'm neither really for or against it. I can see both sides of the minimum wage argument. I can see both sides on the social health care issue. I can see both sides of the abortion discussion. In all of these issues, I don't think the ultimate solution lies in one extremity of the discussion, but rather a fusion between the two (or more unconsidered stances). I feel like instead of picking one side, we should just all work together, basically.
I used to be very black and white with my politics. I saw things as labels, with each issue having a pro- and an anti- tag. Now I have no idea. Some things we simplify far too much, and some things I feel are so complex that no one EXACTLY knows what's going on. And even if I do have a comfortable enough grasp of the issue to be able to have a proper opinion, 90% of the time that opinion will get tweaked. My most common response is usually, "Well, if we consider another perspective..." People don't tend to like that very much, though. It's uncomfortable to not have a solid world view to rely on, and I think that's why people get set in their ways: they become so focused on validation that it becomes impossibly to continue to learn and analyze.
People love things simple, don't they? This is the problem I have with political talking heads and activists. Arguments get simplified down to the point where questions are no longer questions and nuance gets thrown out in favour of emotional manipulation. "You don't support state surveillance? But why do you support terrorists???" "You don't support making meat illegal? But why do you enjoy animals being tortured???" "You support gay marriage? But why do you hate families???"
It's no longer possible to have a large discussion that crosses political lines. Left wingers are all lumped together as naive commies and right wingers are all lumped together as fascists and god forbid these people mix and discuss a specific idea rather than cheering on their team. Some smaller places seem able to handle it (like Hubski), but on Reddit or Facebook? Forget about it.
I am an anarchist pacifist. I believe in the flattening of hierarchy, the end of capitalism and labor exploration, and non-violence. Is it idealistic? Probably. It's an ideal. EDIT: I'm also a fan of council communism, and really any libertarian socialist tendencies.
My opinion, when it comes to America at least, is that the Federal government should exist solely as an intermediary between state governments, as well as for international representation. The CIA, NSA, DEA, and even FBI are pretty large abuses of power that simply consolidate power into the hands of small groups of people that exist in vacuums that keep them from understanding the will of the people.
I just defined myself in an argument on reddit as a centrist antiauthoritarian. However, I consider the furthest rational position on the right to be marked by Barry Goldwater - so I get accused of being a "liberal" or "communist" a lot. But I'm starting to think that cultural/regional preferences are far more significant than simplistic political maps. So it may make more sense to day that I grew up in the Pacific Northwest.
I am a populist. Governments should protect everybody, but support the working class.
Libertarian =
Social (not interested in what you do for or to yourself) Conservative right (government has specific responsibilities and is funded thru taxes to achieve those common goods - spending beyond those measures is counter productive). These responsibilities include establishing a basic legal framework where all men have equal opportunities to succeed. Please note - in those industries where a free market cannot exist (see Teddy Roosevelt) the responsibility of the government extends to regulation. In todays world that would have to include healthcare, environmental and education that I would have otherwise excluded. Those should be regulated with a cost benefit analysis required.
Despite being not in that camp at all, I can understand the appeal of true conservative right politics perfectly well. Your statements would imply that you agree with these "oldschool" conservative views. There are values like "personal honor" and "honesty" which I believe we have pretty much lost as a society - and I sure as hell whish we had done a better job conserving them. How anyone in their right mind could ever argue in favor of the crooked game which passes as conservatism in our times is entirely beyond me, though.
Far left radical but not revolutionary progressive. But from a post structuralist perspective, which tends to be a bit too case-by-case to nail down specific political identities. Plus major political parties tend to be different shades of liberalism which makes it difficult for me to classify myself in those terms.
I have a set of beliefs that I always leave open to argument, but I guess you could call it my political views. I'm a Poli Sci major, so you get a butt load of people telling you to pick sides. You are either in one camp or another, but I find that kind of arrogant especially after studying the more philosophical side of politics. The most important thing I learned was that no one has gotten it right. Nobody created the perfect system of beliefs in regards to politics, and I doubt anyone ever will. Politics is something to be critiqued endlessly really. With that said: I believe in the idea of universal healthcare, and socialized education (up to and through college). I'm pretty relaxed with immigration. I think the war on drugs is dumb. I don't agree with most of the military decisions made by the US (worldwide military aggression, pseudo-imperialist military ideology, etc.) I don't see why gay marriage is even an issue especially when the argument is a legal one. I could probably go on for a while about my views on the vast array of current issues, but I guess if you had to put me somewhere it would be pretty far left.
I tend to emphasize personal liberty, responsibility, and accountability; but I'm also very taken with the idea of socializing education and healthcare. Probably my most extreme view is that I like the idea of mandating one or two years in the military for unpaid, non-combat community service during one's youth. I think that's a fair trade for free education and healthcare.
Arguably the state gets its money back via taxes. And we had mandatory military service or community service in Germany, but it was recently abolished. In the end, the youth were simply abused as free labor which also destryoed job chances for people (e.g. caretakers). But I'm aware that the American mindset is wildly different than ours when it comes to the state.
There's this political compass test that puts me way further left than most politcal parties, but in reality I'm an economics major, so there's a fair bit of right wing stuff there too. Mostly I like to define myself as a loose utilitarian, loose referring to my understanding of philosophy.
I guess if I were to tell someone the type of things I would vote for they would pigeon whole me as a democrat. I don't like signing on bored to a specific party because it just makes me feel as if I'm stuck with that group, and we all know groups can sometimes change what they stand for. I do think that big corporations and the top economic class should get taxed more than they are now. I also think that the government shouldn't have a say in how I live my life. If I want to eat 600 cheeseburgers from McDonald's then let me. If I want to marry someone of the same sex then who are you to stop me, and I better get the same benefits that "normal" married couples receive. My voting decisions are most often than not based on social issues instead of economic ones because I don't know much about economics and what would be beneficial for the country. I'm trying to learn as much as I can but at the moment I would not know what would bring the better outcome.
S'cool, just so long as we don't have to pay your medical bills.If I want to eat 600 cheeseburgers from McDonald's then let me.
I guess you do have a point there. If this country is going to have universal healthcare then I think there should be some regulations that the government would try to put in to make sure you live a healthier lifestyle. For example, if it were up to me I would make getting cigarettes a lot harder to get. People can smoke pot instead it won't harm their body as much. Hell, hemp can really help this economy! It isn't only used as a means to get high. You can make paper a lot faster and more efficiently because it grows a lot faster than trees and takes up less space. Clothing can also be made too. These are the only two examples from this article on Forbes I read a while ago
I agree with the healthier lifestyle part. Only thing is, I also agree with people being able to eat 600 Big Macs if they want. Obvious solution would be to make it in opt-in. But then people could just opt-out when they're healthy and opt-in when they need help. I haven't settled on a fair way to deal with this.
This reminded me of the Ted Cruz fiasco where he wasn't insured by The Affordable Care Act and then once his wife went on unpaid leave he decided to sign up for it. Someone who was so opposed to Obama care decided to finally sign up when it was convenient for him.
I'm firmly of the belief that government as we have around the world is a flawed system. When few people are given the power to rule the many, even when their mandate is one of service, that power corrupts. I believe that instead of governments we should have trade bodies, collectives that represent the people that work in their trade. These bodies decide the value of the goods they produce and trade them with others. People are, on the whole, self policing, meaning that an expensive and corrupt justice system is largely unnecessary. Instead, since the system would allow 0% unemployment, people who do wrong are punished by their peers. The most corrupting thing in our society, money, would also be unnecessary. Since the trade bodies set the value of their goods, they can negotiate fair value for what the people they represent need in exchange for what those people produce.
That just means that we'll have rulers naturally selected based on their access to valuable resources and labor for which others are willing to pay highly. But what does "policing" mean? Somebody could decide policing means making sure all the purple people work in the fields 16 hours a day while the yellow people take care of "managing" them, and that all people with long hair should be the docile, domestic property of people with short hair. Anything else would be a crime, and there would be no mechanisms or safeguards to ever change that state of affairs. 0%? You're going to work the elderly? The children? The pregnant and the injured and the sick? But what if group X wants something only group Y can and does produce, but group X has nothing group Y wants? What if group X's people are in danger of great suffering without group Y's product?When few people are given the power to rule the many, even when their mandate is one of service, that power corrupts. I believe that instead of governments we should have trade bodies, collectives that represent the people that work in their trade. These bodies decide the value of the goods they produce and trade them with others.
People are, on the whole, self policing, meaning that an expensive and corrupt justice system is largely unnecessary. Instead, since the system would allow 0% unemployment, people who do wrong are punished by their peers.
The most corrupting thing in our society, money, would also be unnecessary. Since the trade bodies set the value of their goods, they can negotiate fair value for what the people they represent need in exchange for what those people produce.
As for the self policing idea, since the representatives are not anything more than simply representatives, should they decide that only the purples had to work, the purples could have that person replaced immediately since there's no need to wait for an election. Of course the elderly and sick etc wouldn't have to work, 0% unemployment doesn't mean that, it means that everybody who can work, does. With a welfare system to care for those who are more vulnerable and an education system that actually teaches children things that can help them contribute to society. If group X wants something that group Y prooduces but group Y wants nothing group X produces then group Z can get involved in a trade. Similar to how multi-team trades work in baseball.
X wants timber which is produced by Y.
Y wants grain which is produced by Z.
Z wants fruit which is produceed by X.
X sends fruit to Z in exchange for grain which it then trades with Y for timber.That just means that we'll have rulers naturally selected based on their access to valuable resources and labor for which others are willing to pay highly.
The fact that the bodies are chosen by the people they represent (like a labour union) they can be replaced as soon as they are seen to be doing something their constituents don't like. (Instead of having to wait up to four years as is the case in the current system.
I, personally, am rather (read: extremely) neutral on the subject. It's rather hard for me to put down in words my exact political feelings, but if I had to, I would probably describe myself as apathetic towards politics. That is to say, I know what I would prefer to have from political leaders and what sorts of platforms I'd like my representatives to stand on, but on a day-to-day basis, politics is not something I dedicate time to thinking about. Seriously, this is probably the most I've thought about the subject in a long while.