you didn't know people trend rightward as they age?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Two things: I really do have a bend to the left - if you know what I mean ... and ... this blog post came from this amazingly cool write-750-words-a-day writing site called, of course 750 Words.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's one thing to know that - it's another thing to be under the thrall of a statistic. I'm a human being damn it.>> ^berticus:

you didn't know people trend rightward as they age?

Interesting post.

I was a liberal for all my life until I concluded liberalism, as nice as it is, is on the wrong side of history on most of the human sciences (genetics, intelligence research, human biodiversity etc.).

It sounds like you are just recognizing that there's no one-size-fits-all solution in government.

Many people adhere to conservatism and liberalism a little too tightly for my tastes. Chris Rock did a bit on this years ago where he says he's liberal on some things and conservative on others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIA4__0DIXE

This is why I hate political parties; they inevitably degrade into tribalism where people ignore their own thoughts and ideas, preferring just to disagree with the other tribe no matter what.

Political parties produce lots of candidates but when was the last time any political party produced a leader?

You are not "a liberal"; you are dag. Labels are convenient but rarely adequate, especially when they are so broad as "liberal" and "conservative". Worry less about being "a liberal" and more about having well-formed, thought-out opinions on the issues.

Very rarely does someone fit squarely into an ism.

*Wanting corporations to pay taxes is not conservative. Not liking having to pay taxes is human. I'd feel much better about paying taxes if they weren't being dumped into corporate coffers through bailouts, subsidies and no-bid contracts.

*Social welfare is an attempt to limit the damage caused by our economic system. Our particularly ugly American version of capitalism (whose destruction cuts across all ideological lines) creates unemployment, low wages, inflation, and dramatic economic disparity. No amount of self determination and bootstrapping will end these systemic problems. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of individual social welfare programs, but at the end of the day, the problems they were created to remedy will still exist. If we restructured the system to be more beneficial to labor, there would less need for these kinds of band-aids.

*Small government and efficient government are two different things. "Small" is a purposely vague and arbitrary term. Powerful interests like "small" inefficient, ineffective governments, because they are easy to control. I'd like our government to be as big as it needs to be in order to be efficient. No bigger, no smaller.

*There are other lefties that support nuclear power.

*Everyone loves the constructive, creative side of the free market. It's the economic class war that results from unregulated markets that causes all the problems. In order for Trump to have his billions, other people are going to have to live in poverty to support his lifestyle. The free market is a system of winners and losers, opulence and suffering. You can't have one without the other.

*Optimism and pessimism are present on all sides of the spectrum. I am pessimistic about the times we live in, but optimistic about the future, because things have steadily become better for us since the dawn of humanity. As MLK said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

*Conservatism doesn't have a lock on theism. Liberalism doesn't have a lock on atheism. While Protestants, Evangelists, Mormons and Muslims are usually socially conservative, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Unitarians are usually liberal. Conversely, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the neo-conservative movement they inspired are atheist in nature (although their dogmatic, pie-in-the-sky economic views are a faith of sorts).

>> ^dag:

Despite the recent accidents in Japan - I still believe in nuclear power. I've seen the graphs on heavy metal released from coal plants, rare elements required for solar panels and think it's still our best, greenest hope for energy in the future. This puts me at odds with many of my friends.


This is still a very liberal, very green opinion. It just so happens that the nuclear power industry tends to be politically conservative. Nuclear power is our best option right now, especially since we lack the technology to replace it with renewable energy. What many so-called anti-nuclear "green" people don't understand is that right now distancing ourselves from nuclear power will mean more dependence on dirty coal power.

One could say your stance on nuclear power is right for leftist reasons.

* You still file US taxes? Wow, that's some overreach. I tend to live in the camp of voluntary taxation to fund government programs (excise taxes, etc.), which essentially boils down to no income tax. Income tax in the US is only a 3rd of the Federal Government's revenue, so it's hard to convince me it's necessary especially since such a large portion is spent on defense (which we all know is NOT defense, but really offense).

* Institutional welfare tends to leave people more destitute than aided. Look no further than the Native Americans in the US and Canada. I have a really close connection to one particular treatied band in Southern Canada where alcoholism and gambling isn't just a stereotype. And I've watched young boys grow up disliking when their parents (or parent) use them to get more money from relatives, but once they reach a self-sustainable age they fall right back into that cycle. So few of them I've seen have a drive to escape that life, but instead accept it and live a life of handouts and poverty. I can only guess this isn't because they're natives, because I'm 1/8th native, but because that's what welfare does to them.

Welfare has a stigma, and if you grow up accepting a lifetime with welfare then you grow to associate yourself with that stigma. At least that's the best I can guess.

* Nuclear power is the future. It has to be.

* The free market is the best way for individuals to learn how each of us can better serve our fellow man. No central authority can be smart enough to understand the complexities of every human endeavor, so progress is truly within the open markets. Don't misread that as corporatism. I mean, it's certainly not perfect, but it's better.

* The great, late father of Comparative Mythology, Joseph Campbell, once wrote (and I paraphrase because I can't find it now), 'The world today is as good as it's ever been in history, and it's as bad as it's ever been.' I like that.

* Yeah, when did wanting a more efficient, limited government become a Republican only talking point? It used to be a liberal belief when liberals were more libertarian.

* You should look into Scientology!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yeah, I'm definitely due to get my engrams tested. Pretty sure they're off the chart.>> ^blankfist:

You should look into Scientology!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a really divisive issue within the Green movement. Thought leaders like David Suzuki are definitely against it.


>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dag:
Despite the recent accidents in Japan - I still believe in nuclear power. I've seen the graphs on heavy metal released from coal plants, rare elements required for solar panels and think it's still our best, greenest hope for energy in the future. This puts me at odds with many of my friends.

This is still a very liberal, very green opinion. It just so happens that the nuclear power industry tends to be politically conservative. Nuclear power is our best option right now, especially since we lack the technology to replace it with renewable energy. What many so-called anti-nuclear "green" people don't understand is that right now distancing ourselves from nuclear power will mean more dependence on dirty coal power.
One could say your stance on nuclear power is right for leftist reasons.

Hahaha, check out this page on Scientology politics. It sounds exactly like......

"Political Spectrum by the Yard.
L. Ron Hubbard in his SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL

If you lay out a yardstick with Zero off on the Left, and 36 to the Right, you'll have a fairly accurate numerical political spectrum.

Consider this a Gradient Scale from Slavery on the Left to Freedom on the Right. Consider this also as a Gradient Scale of Emotions, more enturbulated ones on the left with freer ones on the right. Political philosophies can be identified by the chronic emotional tones they exhibit, and emotional tones follow an exact order. Consider this also as a Personal Sovereignty scale, with none at the Left and all at the Right, also as a Responsibility scale, with all in the hands of government on the Left and all in the hands of the people on the Right. Any number of gradient scales may be examined in this way, compared to the degrees of political and economic freedoms allowed by differing governing philosophies.

At Zero you'll find a form of Anarchy, a "burn down the courthouse" kind of anarchy. At 36 is another kind of Anarchy, an ethical Anarchy where people have no need for governance.

All existing forms of "self-government" lie well to the left on the scale. A monarchical government might fall anywhere on the scale, depending on the benevolence of the ruler at the moment, an undependable situation."

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/sci-politics.htm


>> ^dag:

Yeah, I'm definitely due to get my engrams tested. Pretty sure they're off the chart.>> ^blankfist:

You should look into Scientology!

On one end 0% government. Anarchy.

On the other 100% government. Totalitarianism.

That's the spirit. Just dive right into that comparison. Own the crazy.

Shock Doctrine!

Dad died a card carrying atheist and I hope I have the conviction to do the same.

I'm sure God will be impressed.


A fine post, my friend, with fine comments.

I'm terribly late to the party, but I can't resist commenting here. This is a wonderful post with loads of great ideas and comments. I'll go bullet style like all the cool kids are doing.

* Taxation of individuals, and more to the point enforcement of individual tax laws, comes down to prioritization. Morally, it may feel better to want the IRS to tackle the super rich, but financially, it is in fact more beneficial to audit those less capable of evasion. If the IRS can spend $5k to get $10k from several individuals, that is fiscally more useful than spending millions going after one individual that can indefinitely avoid settling up. Corporations, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. Corporations are given the rights of citizens, like free speech, due process, etc., but are not expected to fulfill the same obligations in terms of taxes, being honest with law enforcement, being eligible for military service, voting, etc. That's a whole other can of worms opened up by the SCOTUS back in the 1800s. The answer lies in removing the citizen like rights of corporations, but that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

* Welfare serves the dual purpose of helping those who have been screwed over by circumstance and those who have been screwed over by the system. It is something that the vast majority of right wingers will claim is better served by private charities, which are invariably faith based. Even AA is a religious organization. And every person that subscribes to a faith of one sort or another will tell you that nearly all charities are faith based. You know why? Because its virtually impossible to get non-profit status and wide recognition for an organization unless it is faith based. That historical/cultural bias is reason enough for me to justify a secular/communal charity system.

* Conventional nuclear power is great, assuming it is done safely. That's the problem, though - is it economically viable to maintain conventional nuclear power plants safely? None of the arguments I've seen on either side of the issue really deal with that aspect. It basically comes down to a matter of risk management, which TEPCO clearly failed at. Implementing conventional nuclear power safely requires a really absurd amount capital, but it may be economically smart at a large enough scale. Figuring out the economics of safe nuclear power is way above my pay grade. Ultimately, I believe it is something humans are quite capable of doing, but is there enough political will to do it properly?

* Free markets are awesome! Don't confuse free markets with capitalist bullying, though. A free market assumes that everyone in the market has the same information as everyone else. That's the only way it can actually be free. As soon as one party manipulates the information available to others, the market is no longer free. That applies to everything from snake oil remedies to irresponsible mortgages. A free market doesn't mean a market free of regulation, it means one in which everyone has equal access to the marketplace, producers and consumers alike.

* Small government, or even no government, is ideal because ideally everyone thinks like you do, and has exactly the same minimal requirements that you have. In the real world, the needs of individuals in very large social groups are immensely varied. You may live your whole life without ever needing the services of a fire department. You may not ever need to protect yourself from a psychopathic killer. Hell, you may run your own website from your home and never do more than walk your kids along a deer path to a private school near you. But you are a part of a society. Your kids' teacher may live 50 miles away and need to travel along paved roads to get to that wonderful school. The web of internetworked computers upon which your income relies was first conceived by people working at public institutions. The smallpox vaccination you got as a kid was developed by a tax funded group of doctors. The nuclear power that you want to support would never have been possible without vast amounts of federal funding. Bureaucratic and corruption waste is not unique to government, and any properly organized system can minimize waste. It's not the idea of government, but its implementation that makes it wasteful. Corporations are no more immune to that waste than any other collective. It's true that waste is easier to identify and possibly eliminate in smaller systems, but very large organizational systems are required for big results like space travel, vaccinations, and imperial domination.

* Do not confuse religion with spirituality. Religion is about dogma and social control. Spirituality is about one's connection with the universe. If your neighbor believes in a grey bearded man in the sky that created everything 6000 years ago, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his desire to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. He may use the former to justify the latter, but the two are not really connected. If someone comes to your door offering a deeper connection with the universe around you through Jesus, you can listen politely, tell them that you are already plugged in, or whatever. If someone comes to your door to tell you that you and your family need to behave in a certain way, you can tell them to fuck off with a quite clear conscience.

I don't think any of these ideas are young or old, but it does take some time to refine them into something coherent. I'm 41 and I barely know what coherent or consistent means. One last thing to remember is that you are not who you were 10 years ago, or even 10 seconds ago. Every moment fresh water flows over the fall - it might look the same, but the rocks are never touched twice. (oh - now I'm just getting pretentious)