10 ms·

Well, it's kind of funny. I was joking about starting a political party. Now, as a business owner, I feel it's my duty. Seriously, I've decided after reading t

Well, it's kind of funny. I was joking about starting a political party. Now, as a business owner, I feel it's my duty. Seriously, I've decided after reading this. I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). FYI Ill be moving to Champaign, IL if anyone is interested.

gph 10y ago
>I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). Request denied. Join a side and conform any of your conflicting ideals with theirs. Too much effort letting people decide each issue for themselves. Edit: /s [sorry I forgot to put that, I know sarcasm can be confusing on the internet]
- lettergram 10y ago
  I believe this was in jest lol Im just super liberal. I think you should be able to do what ever you want as long as you don't hurt (or overly annoy) others. The thing is, almost everyone I talk to agrees with me. I don't understand the current political system at all...
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    > I don't understand the current political system at all because you're trying to view it through the lens of "rational, beneficial policies that are supported by a democratic majority" whereas our current system is "niche issues of low utility but high tribal divisiveness used to distract the democratic majority while we secretly empower monopolist corporations"
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "secret" about the current power of monopolist corporations.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        it's not a secret that they're doing it. that much is quite obvious. it's secret not in the sense of "well concealed" but in the sense of "unaccountable".
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > almost everyone I talk to agrees with me If everyone you talk to agrees with your particular political ideology which doesn't match well with either of the major parties, then you have an extraordinarily strong and narrow filter bubble, which you'll need to get out of if you want to achieve any of the goals of that ideology.
  - kennywinker 10y ago
    Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
      - kennywinker 10y ago
        > Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
  - larrywright 10y ago
    You just described Libertarianism.
    - Helmet 10y ago
      Well, sort of. Libertarianism is often (incorrectly) described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". But libertarianism isn't easily defined on the Left/Right spectrum. Two people can hold completely different views on virtually any issue and both could hypothetically fall under the libertarian umbrella.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        Exactly, libertarians can be either left or right, they're simply anti-authoritarian.
        Retra 10y ago
        It's obviously not that simple. Laws are authoritarian by design.
      - d6e 10y ago
        Like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Po...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). The first thing you'll need to do is engage in activism directed at replacing the current electoral system with one that supports more than two viable parties (or, alternatively, convinces enough people of your set of priorities that it replaces one of the two major parties or becomes the platform of one of them.) This activism will, necessarily, need to be a lot more than just voting.
- nosuchthing 10y ago
  electoral system that supports more than two viable parties This would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Explanation of USA's FPTP count as root cause of a two party system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, it wouldn't be IRV, except maybe for a minority (e.g., chief executive) offices whee single winner is hard to escape. It would be something proportional for legislative offices (which might use a ranked choice system like STV, or might not.)
  - _archon_ 10y ago
    I think instant runoff voting is optimal, but it's too confusing for an idiot in a hurry. I'd be content with simple approval voting. Every candidate has a checkbox next to their name on the ballot. If you approve of the candidate, check the box. Most checks wins. Ballot will have a lot of names, but that's the price of democracy.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I think instant runoff voting is optimal It's very nearly the worst actually proposed single-member ranked ballots system; I can't imagine any way in which it is optimal. It's better than FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar.
sharemywin 10y ago
How about focus on data driven effective government.
- lettergram 10y ago
  That's the goal, but you can't say that to the masses. Most people can't relate.
joemi 10y ago
Not trying to be snarky, but isn't that pretty aligned with Libertarian views? You might not need to start your own party.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Because Libertarians are corporatists. Mostly they fail to understand that lack of regulation leads to concentration and cartelization because that's the natural state of capitalism, and if you don't actively fight it you end up handing power from the government (which is ultimately accountable to the people) to corporations which exert that same power, except accountable to no one.
  - Miner49er 10y ago
    Just to add, pure Libertarians also wouldn't be cool with spending government money on research and education.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Not true at all, they'd be totally fine with it as long as it was voluntary. Libertarians aren't anti-government, they're anti-authoritarian.
      - Retra 10y ago
        Who is the volunteer in this equation? Who volunteers to pay taxes? Who volunteers to spend them? Who volunteers to receive them? What does this even mean?
        jgrowl 10y ago
        I dream of a future where allocating funds for non-essential government programs is as easy as using kickstarter.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Libertarians are fine with voluntary collectives, many libertarians are collectivists, aka left libertarians like Noam Chomsky. Being libertarian doesn't mean being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, it can also mean being fiscally liberal and socially conservative, or both fiscally conservative and socially conservative or liberal. Libertarians are anti-authoritarian, they want everything to be voluntary, i.e. live and let live. You can be a total liberal or conservative and as long as you don't want your views forced onto anyone else, i.e. not made law, you're libertarian. The way presidential campaigns are funded for example, by voluntarily checking a box on your tax form is perfectly libertarian.
toomim 10y ago
I'm interested in starting a new party. Email me at toomim@gmail.com.
Paul-ish 10y ago
Seems like regulating an "open internet" and asking for a smaller government are at odds. You need a powerful central government to meaningfully regulate that sort of thing.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Seems like regulating an "open internet" and asking for a smaller government are at odds. You need a powerful central government to meaningfully regulate that sort of thing. That's not really true. The thing which is a natural monopoly is the last mile, which is inherently local. You could literally have the city government own the fiber and lease it to competing private companies without any federal involvement whatsoever. The main impediment to this is that the incumbents are too large, which allows them to overpower city governments in terms of lobbying and prevent anything like that from happening on a widespread basis. But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it.
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    >But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it. And then, when the state government can't stand up to them, we could use the federal government to do so! If only someone suggested doing that in the first place.
mistermann 10y ago
Where do you stand on health care?
clavalle 10y ago
So, a blue dog democrat.

gph 10y ago

>I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). Request denied. Join a side and conform any of your conflicting ideals with theirs. Too much effort letting people decide each issue for themselves. Edit: /s [sorry I forgot to put that, I know sarcasm can be confusing on the internet]

lettergram 10y ago
I believe this was in jest lol Im just super liberal. I think you should be able to do what ever you want as long as you don't hurt (or overly annoy) others. The thing is, almost everyone I talk to agrees with me. I don't understand the current political system at all...
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > I don't understand the current political system at all because you're trying to view it through the lens of "rational, beneficial policies that are supported by a democratic majority" whereas our current system is "niche issues of low utility but high tribal divisiveness used to distract the democratic majority while we secretly empower monopolist corporations"
  - InitialLastName 10y ago
    I don't know about you, but I don't see anything "secret" about the current power of monopolist corporations.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      it's not a secret that they're doing it. that much is quite obvious. it's secret not in the sense of "well concealed" but in the sense of "unaccountable".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > almost everyone I talk to agrees with me If everyone you talk to agrees with your particular political ideology which doesn't match well with either of the major parties, then you have an extraordinarily strong and narrow filter bubble, which you'll need to get out of if you want to achieve any of the goals of that ideology.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
    - kennywinker 10y ago
      > Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
- larrywright 10y ago
  You just described Libertarianism.
  - Helmet 10y ago
    Well, sort of. Libertarianism is often (incorrectly) described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". But libertarianism isn't easily defined on the Left/Right spectrum. Two people can hold completely different views on virtually any issue and both could hypothetically fall under the libertarian umbrella.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      Exactly, libertarians can be either left or right, they're simply anti-authoritarian.
      - Retra 10y ago
        It's obviously not that simple. Laws are authoritarian by design.
    - d6e 10y ago
      Like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Po...

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I just want to vote for a party that supports abortion rights, gun rights, a open Internet, and a generally smaller government (focused more on research and education). The first thing you'll need to do is engage in activism directed at replacing the current electoral system with one that supports more than two viable parties (or, alternatively, convinces enough people of your set of priorities that it replaces one of the two major parties or becomes the platform of one of them.) This activism will, necessarily, need to be a lot more than just voting.

nosuchthing 10y ago
electoral system that supports more than two viable parties This would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Explanation of USA's FPTP count as root cause of a two party system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, it wouldn't be IRV, except maybe for a minority (e.g., chief executive) offices whee single winner is hard to escape. It would be something proportional for legislative offices (which might use a ranked choice system like STV, or might not.)
- _archon_ 10y ago
  I think instant runoff voting is optimal, but it's too confusing for an idiot in a hurry. I'd be content with simple approval voting. Every candidate has a checkbox next to their name on the ballot. If you approve of the candidate, check the box. Most checks wins. Ballot will have a lot of names, but that's the price of democracy.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I think instant runoff voting is optimal It's very nearly the worst actually proposed single-member ranked ballots system; I can't imagine any way in which it is optimal. It's better than FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar.

sharemywin 10y ago

How about focus on data driven effective government.

lettergram 10y ago
That's the goal, but you can't say that to the masses. Most people can't relate.

joemi 10y ago

Not trying to be snarky, but isn't that pretty aligned with Libertarian views? You might not need to start your own party.

Daishiman 10y ago
Because Libertarians are corporatists. Mostly they fail to understand that lack of regulation leads to concentration and cartelization because that's the natural state of capitalism, and if you don't actively fight it you end up handing power from the government (which is ultimately accountable to the people) to corporations which exert that same power, except accountable to no one.
- Miner49er 10y ago
  Just to add, pure Libertarians also wouldn't be cool with spending government money on research and education.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Not true at all, they'd be totally fine with it as long as it was voluntary. Libertarians aren't anti-government, they're anti-authoritarian.
    - Retra 10y ago
      Who is the volunteer in this equation? Who volunteers to pay taxes? Who volunteers to spend them? Who volunteers to receive them? What does this even mean?
      - jgrowl 10y ago
        I dream of a future where allocating funds for non-essential government programs is as easy as using kickstarter.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        Libertarians are fine with voluntary collectives, many libertarians are collectivists, aka left libertarians like Noam Chomsky. Being libertarian doesn't mean being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, it can also mean being fiscally liberal and socially conservative, or both fiscally conservative and socially conservative or liberal. Libertarians are anti-authoritarian, they want everything to be voluntary, i.e. live and let live. You can be a total liberal or conservative and as long as you don't want your views forced onto anyone else, i.e. not made law, you're libertarian. The way presidential campaigns are funded for example, by voluntarily checking a box on your tax form is perfectly libertarian.

toomim 10y ago

I'm interested in starting a new party. Email me at toomim@gmail.com.

Paul-ish 10y ago

Seems like regulating an "open internet" and asking for a smaller government are at odds. You need a powerful central government to meaningfully regulate that sort of thing.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Seems like regulating an "open internet" and asking for a smaller government are at odds. You need a powerful central government to meaningfully regulate that sort of thing. That's not really true. The thing which is a natural monopoly is the last mile, which is inherently local. You could literally have the city government own the fiber and lease it to competing private companies without any federal involvement whatsoever. The main impediment to this is that the incumbents are too large, which allows them to overpower city governments in terms of lobbying and prevent anything like that from happening on a widespread basis. But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  >But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it. And then, when the state government can't stand up to them, we could use the federal government to do so! If only someone suggested doing that in the first place.

mistermann 10y ago

Where do you stand on health care?

clavalle 10y ago

So, a blue dog democrat.