ron paul might say reasonable things, but the way he says them, he is like exasperated or something. like he is like "no really! it's true!" so it makes him sound like a nutter. no offense to all the paulites out there. oh by the way american empire rocks.

Absurdist.

Yes, I am all of the above, Sean. If man is not basically evil (that is to say, cannot be trusted with self-government,) then he must be basically good. If he is basically good, how did Josef Stalin, Osama bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. come into being

Basic != totally

I am, however, not, repeat NOT a racist, anti-semite, or anything of the sort.

fwancophile ... I actually like Ron Paul's speech...

I'm as yet undecided. I need to learn more to make a more informed decision. Currently I'm probably quite moderate, perhaps slightly right leaning.

I think most radical lefts and rights have the best intentions and their ideas sound great in theory, but I firmly believe that humanity does not conform well to the model needed for both sides. I definitely think a balance needs to be struck, although not necessarily centrist.

Thinking in terms of evolutionary theory, an "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy" must be adopted, a la "Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.

Ron Paul is a great guy, means well, and is definitely the most educated in terms of economics, but people want more than that, and frankly I think his ideas are a little too radical for the general American population.

First of all, i'm British so this might only make sense to british people! Although broadly speaking i am socially conservative but economically liberal.

Basically i am a Conservative through and through, i belong to the party and donate when i can. Its an exciting time to be a Conservative in Britain at the moment due to the fact the tired, incompetent Labour government is rapidly showing its cracks and the nation is increasingly looking elsewhere which gives us a real chance at the next election.

Looking to America i would support Obama in the election as i think he is the best candidate and i understand that the Demorcrats have a greater economic competence than the Republicans.

I'm a primitivist. some would say anarcho-primitivist.

if people on here are interested I can show you some of my writings

I just found one of my things, I'm going to post it, because with this crowd it's guarenteed to at the least generate some interesting conversation. be brutal I can take it :P

I declare, after much thought and introspection, my deliberate emancipation from participation in empty consumerism, and in the society that perpetuates it. The same society that mendaciously and injudiciously prioritizes practices that are wasteful, contradictory, and wholly detrimental, that is intolerable to any ideas which break civilizations circular reinforcement of the illusion of it's own importance, and is hostile to those who harbor them, that shortsightedly persists with the intentional, wanton destruction of finite natural resources and biodiversity, exploiting the limited carrying capacity of the Earth and knowingly leading us to a disastrous end. I have decided to secede from this culture of conformity and materialism, because acceptance of its principles leads to inclusion in a tragedy of the commons on a massive scale, and to the destruction of individualism, liberty, self-reliance and free thought. I refuse to unthinkingly accept the idea that our current civilization is both necessary and inevitable, but to always stay true to my convictions and beliefs, and to remain as free as I can of the harmful influence of our society. I will endeavor to inform others of the unfavorable outcomes of materialism, industrialization, idolization, globalization, ethnocentrism, objectification, conformity, and government, because it is my hope that by informing the populace, the abolition of these philosophies can be accomplished without violence and anarchy. I will remove myself, to the best of my ability, from a lifestyle that I no longer believe in or desire.

and if I hear one thing about run-ons or spelling I'm going to shit a brick. people who obsess about grammer and semantics piss me off, it's like someone who has nothing to talk about, so they talk about talking

I'm for McCain, obviously.

all well and good and i agree with you pandora but i think you will need to dumb down the language if you want to get the masses on board. the parasitic Right know about this and while they laugh all the way to their offshore accounts and private walled estates they know that to stay in power and keep milking the human race and the planet for all its got they have to appeal to the masses in language they can understand. thus use security, aspirational elitism and the cult of the expert to appeal to the middle class and baser materialistic aims and treats ( Caesars bread and circuses) to get the working class on side.
meanwhile the left languishes in a pile of academic nice ideas and day dreams.

At this point, I've all but given up on pacifism and the enlightening of others. I'm becoming more convinced that vilolence and anarchy are the only way. DO the ends justify the means?

True Anarchy is impossible. When no one HAS power, inevitably someone TAKES power. Our highest and strongest instinct is, as Nietzche put it, the "Will to Power"

I was using anarchy in the sense that means chaos, lawlessness, and as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Anarchy as a political belief is like communism, in that it looks good on paper, but it could never work

to reply to fwancophile from a long time ago... "cut my taxes, build more train lines, and allow queer marriages - do this and you have my vote. "

To be "queer" is an evolutionary dead end. If it is biological in origin, it is obviously, then, something to be cured of. As this trait ensures that the organism would have no offspring, it would be unable to pass any other benefits on to such progeny.

what is a statist, it has slipped my mind at the moment

oh nevermind I remember.

and to rexx the nihilist, how do you feel about neo luddites

I would prefer Jefferson's agrarian vision... Sadly, China would be ahead of America if we went back to the good old days... WE must increase nuclear weapons production!

theophilius, about your "evolutionary" reasons for homosexuality being a dead end.
An idea i like is that maybe overpopulation , higher population density, urban life styles and culture has lead to a higher percentage of homosexuality in the population. So in a way we can see increasing homosexuality as being our society and planet's way of reducing the population pressure on the planet and in the long run a smart strategy for a infinite capacity for growth organism ( the human race) in a finite world.
a kind of self correcting mechanism built into the human race

Biologically speaking, somebody can be bored without arms. What would you cure Theophilus? Would you let that person marry? I'm interested in knowing your thoughts, or perhaps I misinterpreted your statement. It would almost appear that you are in fact nothing more than an ignorant and sexist bigot... if only there was a cure for that...

I think we should just correct the problem ourselves, and not worry about any possible genetic solutions imposed by evolutionary reactions to a failed society

and I hate when people talk about other people of different lifestyles, or cultures, or beliefs like theres actually a standard to compare it to. Normalcy doesnt exist.

On Normalcy

People from the (rapidly splintering) "mainstream" of society in Europe and the United States today take a peculiar pleasure in considering themselves "normal" in comparison to legal offenders, political radicals, and other members of social outgroups. They treat this "normalcy" as if it is an indication of mental health and moral righteousness, regarding the "others" with a mixture of pity and disgust. But if we consult history, we can see that the conditions and patterns of human life have changed so much in the past two centuries that it is impossible to speak of any lifestyle available to human beings today as being "normal" in the natural sense, as being a lifestyle for which we adapted over many generations. Of the lifestyles from which a young woman growing up in the West today can choose, none are anything like the ones for which her ancestors were prepared by centuries of natural selection and evolution.

It is more likely that the "normalcy" that these people hold so dear is rather the feelings of normalcy that result from conformity to a standard. Being surrounded by others who behave the same way, who are conditioned to the same routines and expectations, is comforting because it reinforces the idea that one is pursuing the right course: if a great many people make the same decisions and live according to the same customs, then these decisions and customs must be the right ones.

But the mere fact that a number of people live and act in a certain way does not make it any more likely that this way of living is the one that will bring them the most happiness. Besides, the lifestyles associated with the American and European "mainstream" (if such a thing truly exists) were not exactly consciously chosen as the best possible ones by those who pursue them; rather, they came to be suddenly, as the results of technological and cultural upheavals. Once the peoples of Europe, the United States, and the world realize that there is nothing necessarily "normal" about their "normal life," they can begin to ask themselves the first and most important question of the next century: Are there ways of thinking, acting, and living that might be more satisfying and exciting than the ways we think, act, and live today?

In response to Theophilus:

to reply to fwancophile from a long time ago... "cut my taxes, build more train lines, and allow queer marriages - do this and you have my vote. "

To be "queer" is an evolutionary dead end. If it is biological in origin, it is obviously, then, something to be cured of. As this trait ensures that the organism would have no offspring, it would be unable to pass any other benefits on to such progeny.

Even assuming your argument is true, there would still be no reason to ban queer marriage. Its not really effecting the future if its a dead end, now is it? And wont it just kill itself off if you are right? why would it need to be cured? If they are going to produce things throughout their life just like anyone else, then why 'cure' them? If anything its like getting the benefit of someone's labor without having to compete with them for the resource of genetics. And additionally, as we encounter a new Malthusian scenario, isn't good that some people are being productive without being reproductive. If anything, it seems like we should encourage non-reproductive behavior. Moreover, being queer does not make one unable to reproduce. They still have the biological capability. In that manner, it seems your eugenics argument is rather deflated because society could choose the most desirable or productive of the non-reproducing sector for artificial reproduction. Then we would have a highly productive, yet non-reproductive group of citizenry.

It seems that you are implicitly arguing that homosexuality is genetic in its nature. I strongly disagree with this. There is, as far as I am aware, little evidence to support a genetic explanation. however, there is some evidence for it being hormonally influenced. There have been a number of instances of 'femalization' in alligator as well as other aquatic animal populations. The evidence in these cases points to human birth control being a pollutant from sewage treatment plants that causes a higher than normal occurrence of females and what appear to be the equivalent of homosexual males.

Oh, Im rather leftist. though I dont really fit into that category. the democrat approach to 'job creation' is rather strange to me. However, go universal healthcare and strongly subsidized education.

The left has proven itself to be a monumental failure in its objectives.

To pandora's claim about the left

Really? i think it has been incredibly effective. In less than 150 years, the US has turned slaves into equal citizens (I know there may be some naysayers about that, but really look at the difference. Even with modern discrimination, non-whites are pretty much on equal standing with whites), have established worker rights and an 8 hour work day, eliminated child labor, established a national education system (while good, it could be a hell of a lot better), obtained near equal status of all races and sexes, began national welfare programs (they're crap, but any economist will tell you how incredibly difficult it is to make a good one). Thats pretty damn good, especially considering that it took millennia to even get a half decent working democracy