Metanoia said:
By participating in the system and voting for a leader, you are giving your consent to be ruled over. You enter into a master/servant relationship. Now you may say that this is unavoidable, but I disagree. You have the ability to break the chains and live your own life, as you want to live it. They may come for you and lock you up, ruin your life. But you still have the choice to act as you will, despite all their efforts to have you cowed into submission.
The system needs to change and we're the only ones who can change it. The best method to achieve that, at least as I see it, is to refuse to participate as much as possible.
I absolutely love the reasoning behind this view, but I question how realistic it is for the majority of Americans. I am privileged in that I can pretty much do and think as I please, but then again my interests don't involve hurting people (at least not directly, as my usage of scarce materials could arguably be inefficient and thus hurting humanity).
So regardless of the law I use drugs, but again I do them usually in the privacy of my own home and to expand my mind. But the issue with not voting comes into the fact that I as an individual am not going to change the system, and if I have this mentality, then the majority of American people will definitely share a similar one.
What I'm trying to say is that regardless of if I vote or not, someone is getting elected and will "rule over" me. While that sounds bad, it's just the way it is, and I'm pretty happy right now, especially being aware of this.
So if someone is going to rule over you politically anyway, wouldn't you rather have a say in it, and then simply just look for opportunities in the future to dismantle the current system?
With regard to the original question, I would probably be classified by others as a democrat with socialistic tendencies (although an anarchist with regard to 'moral' issues). When I do vote, I vote democratic and liberally. I'm very liberal on social issues and believe the government needs to play a role in regulating economics/corporations. I am not a fan of money in politics and believe there should be legal limits. But I also feel the government should play no role at all in things like abortion, marriage (I am in favor of polygamous arrangements should the individuals consent), drugs (of course!), suicide, and euthanasia.
---
But there are certain inherent issues with all of the choices above (also there is a difference between systems of government and political parties, but for now I'll just assume that the end goal of the parties, at least in the US, is a slightly altered system of government):
Republican - Focus is on ego/monetary gain and conserving outdated traditional values that prevent freedom. Favors the wealthy, white owners of capital.
Democrat - What if the majority chooses to abuse a minority that doesn't deserve it? What if the majority is not intelligent or easily manipulated? I do not have much faith in "the wisdom of the crowds" as a lot of people are animals at heart.
Libertarian - If you think the government is evil, disorganized, and too heavily influenced by money, then just wait until the corporations have control. I know libertarians are quick to cite the pros of the "free market system," but what happens when the most economical choice is to pollute a nature reserve with carcinogens or cut off electricity to entire lower class neighborhoods? As much as I like capitalism and believe in its ability to change the world for the better, we still need some kind of watchdog for when money becomes more valuable than the human experience.
Socialist - Really this is one of the best ones in my opinion, and some of the nicest countries in the world have socialist setups. I like systems in which it is easy to be middle-class (read: comfortable) and hard to be poor or rich. However, bureaucracy is a big problem here, along with what increasing populations, such as from mass immigration, can do to the system.
Communist - Huge implementation issues, system seems too contrary to human nature to be fairly implemented. Too much power consolidation and corruption in higher levels, and too much governmental control in person lives (like censorship, consider the mass censors in both the USSR and China).
Anarchist - Pretty much the same arguments as for Libertarians above, but I think there is too much of a criminal element currently embedded in humans to handle such freedom. If anarchy was so great, why did humans establish
civilization and order in the first place?
---
Many of the problems above come from economics, which is based on scarcity. We only have so many resources, so politics mostly comes down to asking "how are we going to choose who will tell us how to distribute our scarce amount of resources?"
I would hope that as technology exponentially improves, we will be able to optimize our resource consumption, and the Internet as well as legalized psychedelics will give everyone the cognitive liberty needed to move us into a Utopian age. Maybe at this point, when we no longer need to compete, true anarcho-capitalism will serve us well. But until then, to avoid mass resource consolidation due to power vacuums, it appears that we need some kind of order imposed upon us.
