[Qaaolchoura]

After losing my password, I finally bothered to get a new one.

For some reason, my description was incomplete, so I fixed it.

In doing so, I noticed that I lost my political orientation of misanthrope, with political compass now requiring orientation along a spectrum.

So my question is, why?

One could make the argument that I'm so far "right" or "left" as to be off the charts. Most of the things I care about aren't easily definable.

Can't call me libertarian. I, for example, support the criminalization of adultery and much harsher DUI laws. Such "authoritarian" leanings go well beyond the pale of civilized discourse in America, and my environmentalism and support of health and safety standards for food are quite out of sink with the anti-government zealots, as I learned when I tried to be one. That and I think Ron Paul has conclusively proven that "libertarian" is generally a cover for "anti-tax, tinfoil-hattted, neo-confederate, religious nutter."

Can't associate me with the "right wing" neo-Darwinists. Though Dawkins and S.J. Gould is full of it, /the Bell Curve/ makes so many mistakes it makes my head hurt.

And certainly can't associate me with the "moderates" and "pragmatists."
I think most "pragmatic" positions, such as the war on drugs, farm subsidies, sugar tariffs, "traditional marriage" and the personal mandate for healthcare are ill-considered and destructive.

Any label I would take one either the traditional or the Nolan spectrum would give a thoroughly misleading impression of what I actually believe. I believe that this would be the case for anybody who gives any thought to political issues.

Free labels are still misleading to be sure, but not so bad as a spectrum.

[ShepherdsDog]

Where have we heard this from before? It was stupid then as it is now.

[Istanbul]

Cuz he is out of sink.

er' make that sync.

[RUEZ]

lily wrote:

I don't know what the problem is anyway. He's made an average of 1 post every 2 months, so why does he care what his profile says?

And he posted it in filibuster.

[Blue_Nose]

Qaaolchoura wrote:

Any label I would take one either the traditional or the Nolan spectrum would give a thoroughly misleading impression of what I actually believe. I believe that this would be the case for anybody who gives any thought to political issues.

Leave it blank and remove any chance of misjudgement - that would seem to be the painfully obvious conclusion one should reach after struggling with such a grave matter as internet forum profiles.

Besides, misanthropy can barely be considered a political orientation.

[Qaaolchoura]

lily wrote:

Quote:

I, for example, support the criminalization of adultery

Seriously?

Why?

A marriage is a contract, which should alone argue for civil penalties.
Infidelity, however runs the risk of STD transmission. Like DUI, you run the risk of serious harm to others.
Further, adultery may run the risk of pregnancy, depriving a female spouse of money the husband pays in child support, or forcing a male cuckold to support children not his.

Adultery is cheating. While I don't usually buy the emotional harm argument, given an intimate relationship under a marital contract, I think it applies here, as it does to domestic abuse.

Of course, the spouse should have the option of not pressing charges. But I do not think that adultery is a victimless crime, any more than DUI is. I also understand that most people I've discussed this with disagree vehemently on both counts ("everybody makes mistakes"), even as they solemnly avow that non-violent drug users victimize the taxpayer.

[Qaaolchoura]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Besides, misanthropy can barely be considered a political orientation.

I don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves, but I don't trust them to make the right choices for other people either.
And I don't trust my own judgment on most issues, except where I have greater mistrust of the judgment of the even more poorly informed.

[Blue_Nose]

Qaaolchoura wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Besides, misanthropy can barely be considered a political orientation.

I don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves, but I don't trust them to make the right choices for other people either.
And I don't trust my own judgment on most issues, except where I have greater mistrust of the judgment of the even more poorly informed.

Wonderful - misanthropy is still not a political orientation.

[Mustang1]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Qaaolchoura wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Besides, misanthropy can barely be considered a political orientation.

I don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves, but I don't trust them to make the right choices for other people either.
And I don't trust my own judgment on most issues, except where I have greater mistrust of the judgment of the even more poorly informed.

Wonderful - misanthropy is still not a political orientation.

Blue's right. Misanthrope isn't a political ideology.

[Psudo]

Qaaolchoura wrote:

A marriage is a contract, which should alone argue for civil penalties.
Infidelity, however runs the risk of STD transmission. Like DUI, you run the risk of serious harm to others.
Further, adultery may run the risk of pregnancy, depriving a female spouse of money the husband pays in child support, or forcing a male cuckold to support children not his.

Adultery is cheating. While I don't usually buy the emotional harm argument, given an intimate relationship under a marital contract, I think it applies here, as it does to domestic abuse.

Of course, the spouse should have the option of not pressing charges. But I do not think that adultery is a victimless crime, any more than DUI is. I also understand that most people I've discussed this with disagree vehemently on both counts ("everybody makes mistakes"), even as they solemnly avow that non-violent drug users victimize the taxpayer.

I like your argument here. It's an unusual conclusion, but the reasoning makes sense.

[PluggyRug]

lily wrote:

It's dramatically naive.

If he's worried about infidelity running a risk of STD transission, how long before he argues that pre-marital sex should also be illegal?

Adultery isn't victimless, sure, but it also isn't a crime.

Besides, what's the point in laying charges? Wouldn't a divorce serve the same purpose? Why involve the courts any more than they already are? And why wasted police resources?

Yes...why criminalise something that is a human failing. Next will be a fine for burping in public.

[Murray_Smith]

Qaaolchoura wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Besides, misanthropy can barely be considered a political orientation.

I don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves, but I don't trust them to make the right choices for other people either.
And I don't trust my own judgment on most issues, except where I have greater mistrust of the judgment of the even more poorly informed.

If I had that kind of mindset, I'd have killed myself a looooooong time ago.

[Psudo]

lily wrote:

If he's worried about infidelity running a risk of STD transission, how long before he argues that pre-marital sex should also be illegal?

Pre-marital sex is not contractual. Marriage is. He already said that.

[Murray_Smith]

I'm reminded of a very relevant quote from Marge Simpson, to Homer marrying gay couples:

"I'm proud of you, Homer. You have given a chance for everyone to express love in its most purest form—a binding legal contract."

[EmperorLiam]

"A marriage is a contract"

Not exactly, its a marriage certificate, not contractual agreement... you can ALSO have one of those, usually referred to as pre-nups.

Courts however ignore pre-nups/contracts, marriage is approached unlike anything else in our legal system, poorly defined and hardly fair.


... the vast majority of Libertarians want the government OUT of marriage altogether.

And your idea is especially contradictory to liberty, adultery isn't even a 'negative liberty'... freedom from adultery is not a right in any category of Libertarians.

Accidentally transmitting a STD is not illegal, nor hurting someones feelings, so you basically just have a silly idea with no connection to Libertarianism.

Not a big deal.