Politics Belief – Politics Opinion:
My views on politics are somewhat complicated. So I’ll try to explain them briefly.
I don’t believe in duopolies or monopolies. I believe they breed corruption.
I believe this for business, and for politics. I was raised in a country where in Business Studies I was taught it was illegal to have a monopoly, and a duopoly was pretty much in the same breadth of this. Duopolies are heavily frowned upon and the government tries to stop it from happening by interjecting if they can, and monopolies are just flat illegal. These systems are pretty much the worse thing for a market in the eyes of the law. I agreed with that at the time. I understood it deeply and took it in as an assumption of how the world should be in terms of business.
As I consider myself an entrepreneur, even at 16 when learning about monopolies in high school, and I heeded it as a statistical operation towards success. I generally am not very good at sticking to rules with no merit, so its a big deal if I decide a rule is valid and makes sense. Its psychologically impactful because it’s against my native ‘grain of direction’. I normally fight things first, it takes a large amount of understanding for me to believe something is worth abiding to when it comes to a regulation. ‘Rebellious’ is what my mum calls it now, ‘cheeky’ was what I was referred to by my extended family as when I was younger. Same trait, lack of the politeness boundary.
So later when I started looking into politics around this age, this understanding I had developed seemed to also acutely apply to politics. Didn’t help that my first introduction to politics, was this incident in which the situation was so heavily publicised and then so heavily publicly retracted. It was heavily damaging to my overall view of the authority of politicians. As I have low politeness, leading to a low native trust in authority, so this was something that affected me very harshly as I gave politicians the benefit of the doubt as had not looked into the area prior. I couldn’t compute how it could ever be seen as truth, this lie. I got why they wanted the power. I just didn’t understand why it wasn’t better wrapped in something semi-truthful to give conscious validity to fall back on when the truth was revealed. So they didn’t look like such dipshits in my brains analysis. There was nothing I could hold onto, it was just 10/10 straight bullshit. I couldn’t maintain any form of respect because it was a dead-weighted lie. Took me a long time to even return back to consider the industry at all. I eventually considered entering into politics for a while, likewise to journalism. But I just… can’t… deal… with the bullshit.
Originally, I was not arguing against duality. I understand that duality is integral to human life. Red vs Blue, Land vs Ocean, Women vs Men, whatever. It is a part of creation and you can’t just flail around saying things aren’t black and white when it’s appropriate.
What I’m saying is that, if there isn’t two black and two white, I don’t get involved in the system because I don’t want to be involved in a caucus of stupidity. This duopoly based system is most prominent in countries such as Australia, America and Britain, etc. You have monopolies in Authoritarian countries. I believe both of these systems breed ‘massive amounts of stupidity’. The duopoly system is formally called , and is present in .
If you have say 10 political parties, but only 2 of them get most of the votes. That is a duopoly. In my opinion, and breeds corruption so I am not interested in voting in the system. Even though I come from Australia where 96% of people vote, and it is mandatory (20$ fine), I took my leave of voting in my early 20s as I realised it was just a circle-jerk of two parties. The greens literally just being an arm of the leftist party, so a duopoly system. There is other arguments to be made, as to why lots of Australians vote. Some of that is to do with Plurality, Majoritarian and Proportional systems. Meaning that your vote is always useful, and you are never just voting for ‘one person’. Though all votes are generally amassed inside the two major parties, so in a sense it is the allure of freedom of choice, but it does drive more enthusiasm in voter meaning.
Compare a duopoly system to say something like Belgium:
Some of these parties are left, some of them are right. What this means is that in this country, if you don’t like your leader of ‘your party’ you can pick another fucking party that also stands for your rights. I respect people’s choice, I don’t care what side people vote for, I care that the parties are being represented fairly. Really easy to place two dickheads at the top and force a sway through crowd psychology. Really hard to get ten people to the top, then 100% know who will win, and bribe the tons more people involved due to the spanning out of the system, etc.
People who actually give a shit about growth of society, in whatever way they see fit is their right, in terms of whom to vote for. If I am in a country which has a duopoly, I just refuse to vote as I don’t think my vote matters cause its just person 1 vs person 1. No fun in that for me as I can flip a coin and guess who will win half the time. Boring game.
In terms of my specific beliefs though. I was raised in a ‘Labour’ household in Australia. Which in difference to the American system is, red / left. My psych evaluation also states often that my traits make me more left leaning or ‘liberal’. Though in Australia funny enough the Liberal party is conservative.
To explain Australian politics:
Labour Party: centre-left / red
Liberal Party: centre-right / blue
Liberal is connected with Conservative international parties: European Conservatives and Reformists Party
In comparison to America:
Republican Party: centre-right / red
Democratic Party: center-left / blue
Republican is connected to Democratic international parties: International Democratic Union
Democratic is connected with Conservative international parties: Nothing listed on wikipedia, but you get the point.
But yes so the world ‘liberal’ for me means something entirely different as I have been raised in a country where being liberal politically is connected to being conservative :).
But fundamentally, down at the core, I am more liberal by definition of the word. I agree with some of the conservative premises though. I appreciate the concept of restriction when its required for living. I don’t want to ride on a train at max speed with no doors as an example. But I place the most emphasis on things like, ‘starting things that don’t fit inside the box’. I am not far-left in my general disposition. Though open about a lot of things, I also have high skeptical tendencies once I notice a flaw in anything.
Something I am not sure about… is whether I agree with Socrates or not. Incredibly hard discussion.
Mostly throughout my life I have called myself an independent when anyone asked. Or a swing voter is the slang. Nonpartisan is the American word for this I hear.
To be truly specific based on my general disposition:
I am a Libertarian whom daydreams about Agorism.
In summary Libertarian means that I’m more of an arsewhole than most Liberals, and I care a fuckton about Freedom/Liberty specifically.
I adhere massively to all the statements made as to Libertarian personality profiling, interests and what is considered important. I am more cold hearted than a traditional liberal, that is accurate. I find sometimes I side with conservatives, more often with Liberals, but sometimes I’m different from either. I absolutely adore spreadsheets, and systematic mapping. I have a less than connective relationship to my parents. I rank in the same pattern in personality profiling, besides one marker which is extraversion though I tend to spend a lot of time alone for someone so highly extroverted so I feel that’s more of an internal conflict I have. I find that I am a libertarian in terms of profile. You can watch a few other videos here if curious: One, Two, Three, Four.