To Atheists and Agnostics: Your political 'bent' is...???

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: okamitengu

anarchy is the lack of hierachical systems.
direct democracy is the process of self governance without politicians

If anarchy is the lack of hierarchy, then direct democracy is inherently incompatible with it.

If "the majority rules", you've created a hierarchy right there--the ruling majority and the oppressed minority.

"Direct Democratic Anarchist" is a contradiction in terms. Same thing with anarcho-capitalism.

respectfully I disagree. its more likely my inability to describe all the possibilities of anarchism...
anarchism: maybe wikipedia will do a better job.

I'm an agnostic conservative.

A godless cosmopolitan.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't vote. Statistically speaking, unless it is a tie, your individual vote makes zero difference. Imo, they should just poll 2000 random people every year and let that determine the outcome of the election.

Anyway, politically I'm a progressive globalist who believes in mutualist economics. I do support a libertarian social agenda, but anarchocapitalism is not my cup of tea, so I depart from them in almost every other area.

In all honesty, politics is kind of like spectator sports. There are a lot of people saying "we" in reference to the team, but unless the organization is sending you a paycheck every two weeks, you aren't part of the team.

Isn't that just vodka straight?


a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is no left or right, there is only liberty or tyranny.

When the Gubmint's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right, is of NO consequence.

All sides are controlled and the only war is the people against the 1%.

I reject all choices that were created only to pit each of us against each other.

The Ruling Elite are in conflict with the citizens in America. They simply don’t represent us. These elected officials use the Left v. Right battle to keep the citizens distracted with partisan politics to keep us from holding them accountable for their self-serving decisions.

For far too long, Americans have been told they exist only as members of warring camps—as Republican or Democrat, red state or blue, conservative or liberal, right or left, religious or secular, urban or rural, majority, minority and even minority/majority. It’s no coincidence that we are described by these labels—as if these labels defined us—by elites who alone stand to benefit from the very divisions they promote.

If they can convince the rest of us that we are at each other’s throats, on the verge of civil strife, these elites can make us believe our own neighbors are our enemies and that we have nothing in common but our hatred of each other.

By herding us into these warring camps, by pitting us against one another, these elites can also distract us from the real forces tearing this society apart—the unaccountable, irresponsible political establishment that now presumes to govern in our name, with no concern for anything but its own interests. By sowing these seeds of distrust, they divide and conquer, and for too long, they have succeeded.

Break the Left vs. Right Paradigm

...the "left" versus "right" split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the "The Nation" and "The New Republic" and right-wing magazines like "The National Review were "artificially set up." The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley. Both are "The Order." Dr. Sutton states: "Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left. This is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them."

Similarly, in the international field left and right political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for one-world synthesis, i.e. authoritarian socialism controlled by monopoly capital. College textbooks present war and revolution as accidental results of conflicting forces. This is nonsense, says Dr. Sutton. They are created and financed by Wall Street to create a new world order. But you won't read this in history books.

"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..." www.savethemales.ca...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

cosmopolitan.

Interesting response!

Can you explain what you mean by "cosmopolitan"? Is it like "sophisticated", or "metrosexual", or "metropolitan", or something else when you say it??

(Just thinking about the magazine and its effects on everything).

a reply to: Compressor35

Isn't that just vodka straight?

Is it???
Wow. I've been "had".
It's been 30 years since I was a "cocktail", AKA a "waitron", catering to the "tourons".
And that was in ritzy-land Ski Country.
LOL!!

Of the firm opinion we should draft folks for public office out of pools of individuals agreed upon by small social groups or communities.

Anyone actively seeking office is, in my opinion and experience, insane.

I'm not sure if this has any formal name... anonymous-anti-authoritarianism? Or something...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can you explain what you mean by "cosmopolitan"? Is it like "sophisticated", or "metrosexual", or "metropolitan", or something else when you say it??

Yes, no relation to the drink or magazine.

It means I am a child and brother of the world, and see the world as my home and country. I do not subscribe to any politics and consider myself a stateless individual despite my citizenship.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Awesome. You and me both, brother.
Like your avatar, btw.


All of us, in the end, are "stateless." It all rides on the shoulders of the actors in the grand charade.

a reply to: Baddogma

I'm not sure if this has any formal name... anonymous-anti-authoritarianism? Or something...

It's Plato.
The Repubic.

Only those who are philosophers are fit to rule the world - and they are the LAST ONES to want to do it.

lemme see if I can drum up a formal quote.....

we began by observing, the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained. We must come to an understanding about him, and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such a union of qualities is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the State.

What do you mean?

Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption.

Agreed.

And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all true being; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honorable, which they are willing to renounce; as we said before of the lover and the man of ambition.

True.

And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not another quality which they should also possess?

What quality?

Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their minds falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth.

Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them.

"May be." my friend, I replied, is not the word; say rather, "must be affirmed:" for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections.

Right, he said.

And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth?

How can there be?

Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood?

Never.

The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as far as in him lies, desire all truth?

Assuredly.

But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be like a stream which has been drawn off into another channel.

True.

He whose desires are drawn toward knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure--I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one.

That is most certain.

Such a one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; for the motives which make another man desirous of having and spending, have no place in his character.

www.fordham.edu...

Read it as a dialogue. It's Socrates....and his conversation partner.

Agnostic libertarian