How the fuck am i supposed to form political opinions and decide who i support...

Tfw no liberal autocratic elective enlightened monarchy
Might as well vote for noone at this point

Just write yourself in for everything.

>& Humanities

This is a literal Jow Forums thread, take it there.

It does not matter because 75% of the voters just follow their emotions and illegals can vote.

I’m not advocating for academia to control it. I’m just saying for the biggest questions, a general population survey is not the best avenue. The people in charge should be made to work for the general population, but the general population should not be calling the shots, does that make sense?

I agree. It's just too complex

>It does not matter, because corporations decide what happens anyways.

ftfy

>implying academia doesn't deserve to be able to be 'tyrants'

You form your political opinions based upon your beliefs and character. It is a disservice to yourself to do otherwise.

“Democracy, indeed, has a fair-appearing name and conveys the impression of bringing equal rights to all through equal laws, but its results are seen not to agree at all with its title. Monarchy, on the contrary, has an unpleasant sound, but is a most practical form of government to live under. For it is easier to find a single excellent man than many of them, and if even this seems to some a difficult feat, it is quite inevitable that the other alternative should be acknowledged to be impossible; for it does not belong to the majority of men to acquire virtue. And again, even though a base man should obtain supreme power, yet he is preferable to the masses of like character, as the history of the Greeks and barbarians and of the Romans themselves proves. For successes have always been greater and more frequent in the case both of cities and of individuals under kings than under popular rule, and disasters do not happen so frequently under monarchies as under mob-rule. Indeed, if ever there has been a prosperous democracy, it has in any case been at its best for only a brief period, so long, that is, as the people had neither the numbers nor the strength sufficient to cause insolence to spring up among them as the result of good fortune or jealousy as the result of ambition. But for a city, not only so large in itself, but also ruling the finest and the greatest part of the known world, holding sway over men of many and diverse natures, possessing many men of great wealth, occupied with every imaginable pursuit, enjoying every imaginable fortune, both individually and collectively, for such a city, I say, to practice moderation under a democracy is impossible, and still more is it impossible for the people, unless moderation prevails, to be harmonious.”
-Cassius Dio

>tfw don't even vote when its about putting an anonymous piece of paper in a ballot, which means you hold just as much political power and agency as the hobo with room temperature IQ out there

shitposting on Jow Forums is funnier.

Attached: 1370417160331.jpg (960x1285, 474K)

will this brainwash me into being communist?

Well if it doesn't make you a communist, it will make you feel guilty about being a capitalist.

Also, Adam Smith and Ricardo were capitalists.

>how is there enough time to educate myself on all political philosophy?
I can't inform myself on all of the issues, but I gotta try hard, it's my duty as a citizen.

Read where you stand on positions and be flexible.

Do you want gay marriage? Vote liberals.

Do you want religious prayers in school/courts/etc? Vote conservatives.

Do you want to help the poor/sick? Vote liberals

Do you want to cut down on regulations and ethics? Vote conservatives.

Do you want to have open internet? Vote liberals

There are so many positions to take, and most of them are voted by party lines.

I wish I could vote for an anti-corporate party but there are no real leftist parties, they're all more interest in migrant welfare and shutting down nuclear power.

The problem is I can’t decide if I want gays or want to help the poor or not, or whats the best method of achieving what I want

The best historians are centrists. No historian should ever pick a side.

1989 "born"
2002 nationalist
2003 neoconservative
2004 liberal
2007 libertarian
2008 anarchist
2018 -

vote for whichever cunt uve heard the least about, out of all candidates, usually the safest bet, or if they are hot, accessable, and fuckable. and not some shit like least evil. talking genuinely fucking longpigmeat you'd fucking eat like you were a starving ethiopean on thanks giving

There are infinite positions to take. Find out what's more important to you.

If you don't care about anything, then don't vote. If you care about 1 thing, then research that one thing. If you care about dozen things, then research those positions.

Its not hard. You are not expected to know EVERY position, no one is has the time nor are they immortal. You can gradually learn where your positions are as you age and gain more knowledge/experience.

Most politics are decided by temperament. Take a big five personality test then I can tell you.

>Do you want gay marriage? Vote liberals.
Do you want marriage handled by the state? Vote liberals. FTFY.

>Do you want religious prayers in school/courts/etc? Vote conservatives.
Strawman.

>Do you want to help the poor/sick? Vote liberals.
Incorrect.

>Do you want to cut down on regulations and ethics? Vote conservatives.
Correct.

>Do you want to have open internet? Vote liberals.
Incorrect and completely fucking retarded.
>You can free something by regulating it.

Do cost/benefit analysis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost–benefit_analysis

>Do you want marriage handled by the state? Vote liberals. FTFY.
The conservatives want the state to ban gay marriage. So you're wrong.

>Prayer in institutions
>Strawman
Literally every conservative institution has religious prayer sessions. Only the liberals have fought it back.

>poor/sick
Literally every conservatives want to save money by not giving it to the poor/sick.

>open internet
Every conservative voted against the open internet.

Modern society would have not come about without democracy though.
>inb4 Gulf states or Imperial Russia

The problem with what user calls democracy is that it's not democracy, it's a semi-rolling oligarchy. Your vote is used to bolster support for one of the oligarchs, and to determine plans for how to implement policy, it's not used to determine which policy to follow.

It depends on how much the voters want something.

If the voters really, really want something, the way they do with Social Security, then you can't fuck with it.

This is why every attempt to screw with Social Security has failed. Untold millions of elderly people nuking any politician who so much as broaches the idea.

On the other hand, if you want to have the guy who regulates the telecommunications industry be a former telecom executive, the average American doesn't read enough to punish that type of behavior with their voting preferences.

Parliamentary systems appear more varied and balanced than presidential systems.

This is thanks to the public actually believing in democracy. The democratic system is only pro-Social Security because it's impossible to get rid of it, people recognize that, like fucking with the Constitution, fucking with SS is a direct admission that the government gives no fucks about them.

The actual objectives are the mix of the objectives of the people with real votes. This is a mostly self-selecting wealthy political class. We just don't know whether more democracy would work on a national scale, it has never, ever been tried.

Read (or watch on youtube) George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce instead. They will show you reality instead of telling you pretty lies.

youtu.be/p6ecoB50PyI

Here is a good speech if you can stand the low quality. It's pretty long but nearly the whole thing is worth listening to. If you want something a little puncher this YouTuber has a good summation of the basic concepts.

youtu.be/JEyNNCn9Z5M

This. This is why an extremely effective policy in democracy is just giving free stuff to the people who vote for you. Most people just want free stuff, so if you give it to them, or at least promise it, you can be voted into power. We've seen a consistent March towards political parties being treated like subscription services where you pay with a vote to have some guy take money away from others and give it straight to you. Spoils of war.

Democracy isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. The electorate in burgerland has more institutional power than the electorates in Mexico or India, let alone places like Turkey or Russia, but mildly less power than in Sweden or Iceland.

The US is certainly a country where the electorate has meaningful, consistent political power, which is enough to qualify as a democracy by whatever arbitrary definition that people use to determine whether a modern state is a democracy.

Reading & the dialectic method.

>Read only leftist bullshit, goy, that won't give you a biased perspective.
Here's a better tip, don't take advice from /leftypol/. Anyone so incompetent that they need an authoritarian state to step in and sort out their lives isn't exactly the best person to be taking life advice from.

This.

>Implying that the reason why Corporations decide everything isn't because of people voting with their emotions and illegal immigrants voters.

Only if that's your only input. Add Nietzsche, Hitler, Stirner, Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, etc. to that list and you'll come to completely different conclusions.

...and if you read Nietzsche, Hitler, Stirner, Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, etc. it will make you realize that Communism is fucking retarded.

Ever consider maybe voting for less government control so that these groups of people can help themselves with society trying to restrict them?

It's not a binary, it's that the arguments against MORE democracy are bullshit. We haven't had a situation were more democracy to use as an example, while all the examples with less are much worse. We know that dictators and populists use government to GIVE people stuff, but we have no idea if people would actually vote for this if they had a real vote on it.

>Here's a better tip, don't take advice from /leftypol/. Anyone so incompetent that they need an authoritarian state to step in and sort out their lives isn't exactly the best person to be taking life advice from.

Like the alt-right.

This inconsistent bs
Quit spamming your crap over here

Attached: Metapedia_English_logo.png (250x300, 59K)

Switzerland and California have direct democracy.

Would you define "more democracy" as in direct democracy?

>Like the alt-right.
The alt-right doesn't exist, if you are referring to Jow Forums then yes don't take their advice either.

That's not oligarchy. That's republican democrat. Oligarchy means group of people control the government without input from the voters.

>Do cost/benefit analysis.
Did you not read your own article.
>The three main criticisms were:
1. That CBA could be used for political goals. Debates on the merits of cost and benefit comparisons can be used to sidestep political or philosophical goals, rules and regulations.
2. That CBA is inherently anti-regulatory, therefore not a neutral analysis tool. This is an ethical argument: that the monetization of policy impacts is an inappropriate tool for assessing things such as mortality risks and distributional impacts.
3. That the length of time necessary to complete CBA can create significant delays, which can impede policy regulations.

The value of a cost–benefit analysis depends on the accuracy of the individual cost and benefit estimates. Comparative studies indicate that such estimates are often flawed, preventing improvements in Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency. Causes of these inaccuracies include:
1. Over-reliance on data from past projects (often differing markedly in function or size and the skill levels of the team members)
2. Use of subjective impressions in assessment
3. Inappropriate use of heuristics to derive money cost of the intangible elements
4. Confirmation bias among project supporters (looking for reasons to proceed).

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a minute.

I think you should read as much as you can. I'm just saying that I think that canon is the quickest way to understand anything about politics.

>read Nietzsche, Hitler, Stirner, Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, etc. it will make you realize that Communism is fucking retarded.
I'd say reading them is the quickest way to give yourself brain damage.

>I think you should read as much as you can.
I agree.

>I'd say reading them is the quickest way to give yourself brain damage.
Ironic coming from someone who recommended Marx, Hegel, Lenin, Stalin & Mao.

Not necessarily. Certainly not the California model, where the results can still be predicted reliably by determining how much outside money is being spent.

I'm referring to the kind of people who voted for Trump, they want the state to fix their lives and they voted for it.

>I'm referring to the kind of people who voted for Trump, they want the state to fix their lives and they voted for it.
You're absolutely right, Trump is way more of a Statist than the people he ran against. If the left and Bernie would have won, he would have deregulated the government for sure [sarcasm].

You just spammed the most anti-social thinkers that are popularly known. Aside from the neoliberals, what other of those writers managed to successfully establish an economic system whose effects are still felt today?

I want a system where the risks and rewards are plainly and honestly laid out before the people. Allow them to choose what the acceptable consequences are, instead of telling them that it's all fucking roses and sunshine if you choose them.

You examine you personal philosophy and use significant issues to you as a focus. In truth many (but not all) of the positions have a subtle shared logic to them depending on your orientation. Do you sympathize with the struggle of transexualism? Then you're probably a social liberal.

Unfortunately this requires some back and forth dialog on the issues to figure yourself out, and modern media is so irredeemably shit that I'm not sure you can rely on it anymore. They'll just try to brainwash you by manipulating facts to craft a preferred narrative. I guess political coherence is pretty hard for zoomers, now that I think about it.

>the world is this simple
You have to be 18 to post

According to our leaders/academia everything is pretty clear cut and simple. They'd be able to put out a list of positives and negatives to their own policies if they were honest. You could simplify every political position down to negatives and positives.

Negative and positive depends on your worldview, which varies a lot. Things just aren’t that simple nan

Both were always going to increase the power of the state. Trump has. Every President does.

People voted for him because they wanted him to make the state intervene to help them.

The political world isn't as complicated as elites pretend. The problem is if the truth were known clearly those in power would likely not stay in power.

Attached: global-wealth-distribution-590v2.jpg (590x501, 91K)

>implying you can create a functional system without first reducing the situation to an abstraction and deciding on first principles

Attached: 1487817099330.jpg (762x785, 193K)

>Negative and positive depends on your worldview
I bet you post fat ugly women in /s/ and tell complainers that "sexy beautiful women" is entirely subjective.

>The conservatives want the state to ban gay marriage. So you're wrong.
Nope, try again. Conservatives typically believe that marriage should be handled by private institutions such as churches not the state. The reason why the state began handling marriage in the first place was to allocate benefits to families to incentivize birth rates. Gay couples do not have the ability to procreate which makes giving them the same benefits as someone who you are trying to incentivize having children fucking retarded.

>Literally every conservative institution has religious prayer sessions. Only the liberals have fought it back.
>Conservative Institution
>Religious Prayer Sessions
Doesn't matter if it's a private institution. When it comes to public institutions, you can still have prayer sessions so long as they are not forced and do not discriminate which why many modern public institutions use the moment of silence.

>Literally every conservatives want to save money by not giving it to the poor/sick.
If you think Socialism is a better system than free markets for helping the poor & sick then I hate to break it to you but you are economically illiterate and mildly retarded.

>Every conservative voted against the open internet.
>He doesn't understand how Net Neutrality works the post.
You can't free something up by regulated it. I'm still waiting for all these doomsday events like censorship via speed throttling & outrageous internet fees that the left kept kvetching about to happen.

No further arguments from me, I agree with this post.

>Nope, try again. Conservatives typically believe that marriage should be handled by private institutions such as churches not the state. The reason why the state began handling marriage in the first place was to allocate benefits to families to incentivize birth rates. Gay couples do not have the ability to procreate which makes giving them the same benefits as someone who you are trying to incentivize having children fucking retarded.

The state includes the courts. Should the courts recognize every marriage carried out by private institutions?

The tax stuff is completely irrelevant to the underlying argument.

>Doesn't matter if it's a private institution. When it comes to public institutions, you can still have prayer sessions so long as they are not forced and do not discriminate which why many modern public institutions use the moment of silence.

So long as they don't call it a prayer session, people who observe the moment of silence can do what they want?

>If you think Socialism is a better system than free markets for helping the poor & sick then I hate to break it to you but you are economically illiterate and mildly retarded.

Every economy in the world is both, and we can modulate the economy along those and other lines.

>You can't free something up by regulated it. I'm still waiting for all these doomsday events like censorship via speed throttling & outrageous internet fees that the left kept kvetching about to happen.

You can if there are a lot of outstanding suits against an industry, and they have managed to avoid paying out for most of the costs they have imposed thanks to government monitoring. Regulations allow you to investigate the irreversible economic and ecological effects before the firm carries them out, and before the firm dissolves to allow the owners to get away with the profits. Because the same owners control much of the government, regulations have to appeal to them as well, but they can still keep them honest.

2009 cannabis
2013 ri

>Should the courts recognize every marriage carried out by private institutions?
The courts are supposed to recognize contracts which what marriage is.

>The tax stuff is completely irrelevant to the underlying argument.
The Tax stuff is the whole reason why Gay marriage is a thing.

>So long as they don't call it a prayer session, people who observe the moment of silence can do what they want?
If you're Christian , Muslim, Jewish, etc. you may pray, if your not religious you can contemplate the universe, if your ass itches you may scratch it.

>Every economy in the world is both,
To a certain degree.

>and we can modulate the economy along those and other lines.
Government cannot generate wealth and government intervention causes extensional issues such as inflation to occur.

>You can if there are a lot of outstanding suits against an industry, and they have managed to avoid paying out for most of the costs they have imposed thanks to government monitoring.
That's not how that works.

>Regulations allow you to investigate the irreversible economic and ecological effects before the firm carries them out, and before the firm dissolves to allow the owners to get away with the profits.
That's not what a regulation does.

>Because the same owners control much of the government, regulations have to appeal to them as well, but they can still keep them honest.
>Government creates regulations.
>Bigger business can abuse regulations putting smaller business out of business killing competition.
>Bigger business gain control over government via lobbying and can write more regulations that benefit them and not their competition.
>Implying this won't lead to a corrupt government and unbridled corporate power.

>The Tax stuff is the whole reason why Gay marriage is a thing.

So long as the government considers it an essential part of marriage it IS.

The real issue is whether the marriages will be recognized by the state for all kinds of purposes.

You really think the courts should recognize everything any private institution calls a 'marriage' or are there any rules that the state needs to have to decide which are worth recognizing in court?

>Government cannot generate wealth and government intervention causes extensional issues such as inflation to occur.

Inflation is a planned part of a market economy.

>That's not what a regulation does.

It is. You have the regulation to get the firms to do XYZ practice before they're investigated. With no regulation, the firms always avoid XYZ practice until they've imposed costs on others, and then the firm is dissolved so that the owners don't have to pay. Regulations are one way to get them to pay up before they impose costs, rather than allow them to abscond without paying anything but keeping the profits.

>Because the same owners control much of the government, regulations have to appeal to them as well, but they can still keep them honest.
>Government creates regulations.
>Bigger business can abuse regulations putting smaller business out of business killing competition.
>Bigger business gain control over government via lobbying and can write more regulations that benefit them and not their competition.
>Implying this won't lead to a corrupt government and unbridled corporate power.

That's how it's gone in real life. There will always be corporate pressure on the government, and they have the most money to spend, and the government, judging from how it's always acted in the past, will always do what the investors want. If everyone else doesn't influence the government against them, they get the exact regulations they want.