tina wrote:
] *For the record, I know plenty of cute democrats. Anyone seen
] Maggie Schutz or Chris Heinz?

No comment on Maggie Schutz as if I compliment her it will make her boyfriend jealous as he secretly wishes I was gay and wants me to focus my affections on him.

However, as far as Chris Heinz is concerned... Well, far be it for me to understand what women find attractive, but seriously, you think THIS GUY is hot??

Chris Heinz

Decius wrote:
] tina wrote:
] ] *For the record, I know plenty of cute democrats. Anyone
] seen
] ] Maggie Schutz or Chris Heinz?
]
] No comment on Maggie Schutz as if I compliment her it will
] make her boyfriend jealous as he secretly wishes I was gay and
] wants me to focus my affections on him.
]
] However, as far as Chris Heinz is concerned... Well, far be it
] for me to understand what women find attractive, but
] seriously, you think THIS GUY is hot??

Soooo hot.
But not as hot as you, of course. Now, if you could just get that neo-liberal streak under control... ;)

tina wrote:

] But not as hot as you, of course.

I'm too sexy for your party...

] Now, if you could just get
] that neo-liberal streak under control... ;)

Am I a neo-liberal? What does that mean? I've been considering declaring myself a political agnostic. I'm opposed to organized politics, for the same reason that I'm opposed to organized religion. Both produce people who are more interested in being right then understanding whats real, which inevitably leads to strife.

As long as you beleive that you are a particular thing... I AM a Republican... I AM a Catholic... Then you cannot think critically about that thing, because if its wrong, then you are wrong, and this undermines your self esteem.

By calling myself a political agnostic I get to oppose the entire spectrum of political thought without having difficulty explaining where I stand. I give my stance a name. A meme.

Unfortunately political agnostic seems to already be taken:

"A political Agnostic is someone that claims to not have enough knowledge about politics to make a decision about what party to vote for, what candidate to choose, or how to vote on an amendment."

While its fair that a religious agnostic might claim to not have enough knowledge about reality to select a view of how it works, this explanation is somewhat misleading. There is a difference between not knowing enough because you don't care to learn, and not knowing enough because you don't beleive its possible to know enough. In either case, neither definition describes what I'm talking about. Its not that I don't know enough to vote. I support and oppose laws and candidates all the time. Its that I don't agree with the idea of associating with a group versus making my own personal choices on an issue by issue basis.

Maybe I need a new word? Anocrat? Damnit. Already taken:

"The anocratic state is an intermediate state where elites maintain themselves in power despite the existence of democratic procedures."

Kind of what we have, isn't it?

Is it possible that the english language does not have a word for someone who is opposed to organized politics? Anyone got any suggestions?

Decius wrote:
] Is it possible that the english language does not have a word
] for someone who is opposed to organized politics? Anyone got
] any suggestions?

[ When you say you're opposed to organized politics, i think you're being a little too general. Politics is sort of definitionally a system by which you determine the governance of a thing.

What you mean, i guess, is that you're opposed to the concept of political parties, which are of course little more than schoolyard cliques, all growed up. Alas, it's a little like saying you're opposed to air, since people will probably always cluster and group themselves according to the various laws of psychological gravity... I may be too cynical to believe this will change.

Still, it's a valid position to take, and one which I fairly agree with... to take the vast spectrum of standpoints available for all of the uncounted topics we deal with and extract only two distinct sets is absurd. It's only marginally tractable since many standpoints are relatively codependent, a fact which helps lead to the ultimate distillation into 2 sides.

I think what you are, and what we all should be, is Independent. I realize that that term is used to mean "not Democrat or Republican" to most, but it really is the essence, i think, of what you're saying. "I'm an independent. I'm my own party. I have a platform based on my opinions. It my be more or less similar to another set of opinions, but it's still uniquely mine, because it was developed by my unique rationale."

Of course, the better question than how to label onesself is how to put the spectrum back on the table... how to enable a system which can represent more nuance than Red vs. Blue. I'm sure there are political scientists and technologists and bright folks from Edge and the Well and all sorts of think tanks who've bandied this about before... what's been said? Can we get to the kind of quorum system envisioned by Brin (Earth) and Card (Enders Game) among others?

Sadly, in the meantime, we may debate nuance all day long, but at the ballots, we have to decide which side of the singularity we're on... it's pretty easy for me these days, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't prefer a more nuanced system. How do we get there? -k]

Decius wrote:

] Am I a neo-liberal? What does that mean? I've been considering
] declaring myself a political agnostic. I'm opposed to
] organized politics, for the same reason that I'm opposed to
] organized religion. Both produce people who are more
] interested in being right then understanding whats real, which
] inevitably leads to strife.

I have to say that this is the reason why I'm not a registered voter. Believe me, I came this close [holds fingers millimeters apart] this past year, if only to get Bush out of office. But I don't believe that government in the modern world is an effective means at solving the problems that we face. It, like any other human organization, is fraught with too much abuse and corruption, nullifying most of it's greatest potential.

It bothers me that in America particularly, most people think of politics like they think of sports. It's just something to bitch about at work. And it's far more fun to root for your team, no matter what the details, than to actually consider the real issue. We've basically squandered our intellectualism in this country and replaced it with a nation of Nascar loving couch politicians.