Exh politi standing expanded

I am glad that I am a Libertarian Socialist because Libertarian Socialism is the proper and natural extension of Classical Liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.

This classical liberalism fills the previous big hole of classical liberalism with goodness

Marxism is good because it is an extension of Liberalism and is a better extension of Liberalism than Liberalism 2.0. But Marxism should not be mixed with Liberalism 2.0 

I agree with what Vaush said here  “When (Karl) Marx and following theorists wrote on capitalism they weren't writing 'capitalism and liberalism are worst things to ever happen to humanity, they are the greatest oppression of workers'. No. Marxism is supposed to be an extension of liberalism not a rejection of it, a true promotion of unity, fraternity, and freedom, and liberty, etc. That's what Marxism and that's what leftism is about, it's about bringing the messaging of the liberal movement forward, to make it better, to make it get stronger, to make it true to its principles.”

So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Agnostic Radical Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, 4pt, Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, and any other view which fuses together Marxism and Liberalism 1.0 together

This also explains why I am a Liberal Socialist, Libertarian Socialist, Market-oriented left libertarian, Left Wing Free market anarchist-anarchistic socialist/Mutualist

I am an Egalitarian

I support the civil liberties that are derived from Enlightenment liberalism. I support this video from Slavoj Zizek titled "Defend the Enlightenment" 

It is great to be an egalitarian because by being an egalitarian I can actually see the forest through the trees unlike many others who cannot

I believe that Equality trumps Equity . To quote Rosa L “For a world where we are socially equal, humanly different and totally free”  We have a right to be equally different and free

All persons exist on a worldwide level while on a nationwide level, as a political and moral reality, there are two human categories: good people and bad people (based abstractly on moral competence)

“Nobody is superior, nobody is inferior, but nobody is equal either. People are simply unique, incomparable. You are you, I am I”

“You preachers of equality (and equity): your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.” Friedrich Nietzsche

“The entanglements of bondage and liberty shaped the liberal imagination of freedom, fueled the emergence and expansion of capitalism, and spawned proprietorial conceptions of the self. This vexed genealogy of freedom plagued the great” Saidiya Hartman

The longstanding and intimate affiliation of liberty and bondage made it impossible to envision freedom independent of constraint or personhood and autonomy that was/is separate from the sanctity of property and proprietorial notions of the self. 

I consider the key inequalities between people to be artificial and negative, which I feel should be overcome by the type of state I write about in this blog

I support equal liberty and I feel that equal liberty rests on political, social and economic equality of opportunity. The principle of equal-liberty is an 'open-ended horizon that allows for endless permutations and elaborations. 

I believe that equality is more important than (and comes before) freedom (including intrinsic freedom)

I support the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in our society in order to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments . I support my combined economic systems (which naturally acheive income equality) as the means to achieve this.

In my opinion, Equality should not come secondary to liberty. Equality should go beyond the formal equality of rights so as there is no tension between the two and no separation and conflict between individuals as passive recipients within society. Freedom and Equality need each other to work

I like this quote in this post on equality 

I feel that Liberty (and its realization) is collective as it should be shared instead of being diminished and thus being  'only imaginable in the contest of the liberty of all', It should be accompanied also by social and economic equality. 

We need to revive the authentic liberalism from the 19th century with younger and more modern traits and liberal cultural values that make more sense in these contemporary times

The reason I am like I am on many issues is because I have empathy and I am a Libertarian

I believe that human rights like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should remain as human rights. 

But I also believe that equality (equality is my guiding light and equality is more important than liberty, equality comes before liberty),  justice (based on the enlightenment egalitarianism) and solidarity (based on a fusion of pathological altruism with effective altruism and Golden rule solidarity) should be added as human rights. So I defebd human rights

Just go be clear, I am not anyone’s ally . I can be your comrade, but I will never claim to be your ally. I’m in this for my own material gains, which just so happen to coalesce with those of 99 percent of Americans. I am Marxian and I am not a Liberal 2.0er.

In *reality I don’t really care about human rights since human rights are a *bourgeois concept that at times are used to defend the right (*see here)

Personally and legality wise, I am morally apolitically progressive on human rights (as noted below in my Mark Twain moral evolution quote and this meme) . We are all born with natural rights

Rights should always have been framed around the POSITIVE (i.e sex positive and also we should reclaim sex negative see here for more on that) than the negative . I support such Positive rights (including me conditionally supporting Sex positivity as can be seen throughout this blog primarily in the gender lgbtq section])

Negative rights promote hierarchy and are about what people cannot do while allowing through that hierarchy power the permission to do things via rights

Positive rights on the other hand, are hierarchieless and are about what people CAN do. They don’t make distinctions between what is prevalent and what is outside the norm. They thus blur the line or even remove the line between what is and isn’t socially normal/acceptable creating a streamlined, natural and smooth element to the concept of rights.

We must balance rights. We should respect rights such as right to health (in a way that meshes with all of my combined socioeconomic views) and adequate standard of living (adequate by my standards). We should strengthen other rights like freedom of speech and property rights . See this for more

Owning sneakers is not a human right. Owning a flat screen TV is not a human right. Owning a video game system is not a human right. Accessing Pornography is not a human right. Celebrating Halloween, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Valentine’s Day, New Years is not a human right. Doing drugs recreationally is not a human right. Owning a smartphone is not a human right. Going to Disney theme parks is not a human right. Paid long distance vacations (500+ more miles from home) are not a human. None of these things will ever be human rights because I will not allow them to be recognized as human rights

LUXURIES ARE NOT HUMAN RIGHTS AND SHOULD NOT BECOME HUMAN RIGHTS

I like this quote by Benjamin Tucker “if I go through life free and well off, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally is more well off. Liberty will ultimately make all men and women well off; it will not make all people equally well off. 

Human rights/God-given rights/natural rights are an intellectually vacuous concept, and borderline religious in presentation in spite of rights being championed by the in theory but not in practice secular liberal tradition. 

What we refer to as 'rights' are just highly valued and legally privileged liberties doled out by the state. Anything could become a right, or lose its status as a right, if the collective nation or an adequate authoritarian government so desires it. It's not that I believe that these 'rights' shouldn't be valued, its just that I am opposed to the concept that such rights exist outside of the state and civilization.

Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”

These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism. 

Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”

In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence. 

However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters

I support equality but being OCD about having everyone and their dog be 110 percent equalequitable rubs me the wrong way

“Equality isn't possible because it's not built into nature. Every form of equality we enforce is man-made, therefore every attempt is a failure to force nature to be unnatural. Our 'theories' are damaging us and we should return to celebrated individualism.”

“ Equality doesn't exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys.” See here for more

Authority may (and may not) make all people equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living". Keep in mind I incorporate egalitarianism into my views but Tucker’s view above does factor into my views

On ethical issues, my views tend to be left or lean left, with socialist roots even the radical component. I respect politicians freedom of conscience

However to quote Vladimir Lenin “ Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”. and expand or go beyond that line of thinking

Aspects of these views of rights can be found throughout this blog

I support the common good especially maybe Common good constitutionalism

On lifestyle choices, I take no stand on the personal, social, or cultural preferences of individuals or groups except in ways that align with my political views in this blog. 

A person’s lifestyle is just an extension of their property rights. I assert simply that each and every lifestyle choice should not violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

I am neutral in the Culture Wars in ways that align with my political views like in this blog (and I echo Ryan Grim's view this post and this video titled "Ryan Grim: The Culture War Is Not A Proxy For Race, It’s A Proxy For Class"). Also see this which I sort of am supportive of

To quote The Guardian "many on the 'left' (liberal 2.0 -liberal leftist side) have argued that such [culture war] battles [a]re 'distractions' from the real fight over class and economic issues." See this post by me for more 

I support Family (before we abolish and then reimagine it), nation (not blindly see Nation and migration section), honor, duty

I support individual reforms to better protect liberty

I am Anti Establishment. While it is fun to say “Heaven is not taken by consensus: it is taken by storm”, (I i.e that force alone makes something just [within reason and meshing with UN human rights laws when applicable]) we should always use the way that Podemos “takes heaven” instead of through storm

Freedom exists for those with the force to take it - the moment that your loyalty is to yourself rather than any spooks, you begin resistance. "The masses" won't do this at all

I have major issues with demand making to people in power, so instead I choose the practice of direct action and attack. 

I am very wary of the idea that we can realize our desire for self determination by making piece-meal demands which, at best, only offer a temporary amelioration of the harmfulness of the social order of capital. 

I recognize the necessity to attack this society in its totality in order to achieve a practical and theoretical awareness in each partial struggle of the totality which must be abolished. 

Thus, furthermore, the capacity to see what is potentially revolutionary, what has moved beyond the logic of demands and of piece meal changes in partial social struggles, since, basically , every radical, insurrectionary rupture was sparked by a struggle that started as an attempt to gain partial demands, but that in practice moved from demanding what was desired to seizing it etc

I am Anti Elitist but I recognize that the current Anti elitist movement has been hijacked and corrupted by ill intentioned Right wingers (like MAGA) to promote bigotry , anti science and similar trollish and non sensical ideas . 

If being inclusive, supporting egalitarianism, supporting diplomacy ,being pro science and supporting other Left wing or Liberal things that Right wing anti elitists are against is ‘elitist’, then I guess by those right wingers definition I am ‘elitist’

I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions 

I am Anti Statist which can be seen throughout this blog. I am generally against centralized state power. At absolute minimum, I am against government bureaucracy especially inefficient government bureaucracy 

I am opposed to the state - as an enforcer of institutions, submission, and force. 

“Whoever lays his /her hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him/her my enemy.” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

To quote Max Stirner, "agitation might rather be declared against establishment itself, the State, not a particular State, not any such thing as the mere condition of the State at the time; it is not another State (e.g. a "people's State") that men aim at, but their union, uniting, this ever-fluid uniting of everything standing. — A State exists even without my co-operation: I am born in it, brought up in it, under obligations to it, and must "do it homage." [huldigen] It takes me up into its "favor," [Huld] and I live by its "grace."

I go beyond and also critique morality . I either (1) do a moral nihilist critique of morality/reified values/moralism. Or (2) I take a subjective ethics of ambiguity viewpoint. Or (3) I talk of morality from an entirely different foundation.

Morality is a system of reified, abstract values, values which are taken out of any context, set in stone, and then converted into unquestionable beliefs to be applied regardless of a someone’s true desires, thoughts or goals, regardless of the situation in which a person finds themself in. 

Moralism is the practice of reducing living values to reified morals, and also of considering oneself better than others because that person has subjected himself or herself to morality (self-righteousness), and of proselytizing for the adoption of morality as a social change tool.

When a person’s eyes are opened by scandals or disillusionment and they begin to dig down below the ideological surface and they received ideas that they have taken for granted their whole lives, the apparent coherence and power of this new answer that they find (whether in religion, leftism or even anarchism) can lead them to believe that they have now found the Truth (Truth with a capital ‘T’). 

Once this starts to occur people too often turn onto the path of moralism, with its attendant problems of elitism and ideology. 

Once people give in to the illusion that they have found the one Truth that could fix everything — if only enough other people also understood this Truth, the temptation for them is then to view this one Truth as the solution to the implied Problem surrounding everything that must be theorized

This leads them to build an absolute value system in defense of their magic Solution to the Problem that this Truth leads them to. At this point moralism takes over the place of critical thinking.

The main issue with Moralism is that people are exploited or dominated by capitalists (or alienated from society or from the productive process. etc.). 

The Truth is that the People must take control of the Economy and/or Society into their own control.

The biggest hurdle to this is the Ownership and Control of the Means of Production by the Capitalist Class which is backed up by its monopoly over the use of legal violence through its control of the political State. 

To overcome this people must be approached with an evangelical fervor to influence them to reject all forms, ideas and values of Capitalism and to adopt the culture, ideas and values of an idealized notion of the Working Class in order to take over the Means of Production by abolishing the Capitalist Class power and constituting the Working class power (or its institutions that are represented, or even their Central Committees or its Supreme Leader) over all of Society

This tends to lead to some type of Workerism (usually including adopting the dominant image of the working class culture i.e the working-class lifestyles), a belief in (more often than not Scientific) Organizational Salvation, belief in the Science of (the victory of the Proletariat in) Class Struggle, etc. 

Also tactics that are consistent with building the fetishized One True Organization of the Working Class to contest for Economic and Political Power. 

A whole wage value system that is built around a particular, very oversimplified conception of the world, and moral categories of good and evil are substituted for critical evaluation in individual and communal subjectivity terms

The spiral into moralism is never an automatic process. It is a tendency which naturally shows itself whenever people start down the path of reified social critique. 

Morality always involves stalling the development of a consistent critical theory of self and society. 

It short-circuits the developing strategy and tactics that are appropriate for this critical theory, and it encourages an emphasis on personal and collective salvation through living up to the ideals of this said morality, by idealizing a lifestyle or culture as virtuous and sublime. 

In the process this demonizes everything else as being either evil perversions or evil temptation

One natural emphasis of this then becomes the petty, continuing attempt to enforce the boundaries of virtue and evil by policing the lives of any person who claims to be a member of the in-group sect, while self righteously denouncing out-groups. 

Like, in the workerist milieu, this means attacking any person who doesn’t sing the praises of the virtues of the working class (or one true form) organization or to the virtues of the overbearing image of the Working Class culture or lifestyles (like beer drinking as opposed to drinking wine, rejecting hip subcultures, or driving a Nissan instead of a BMW). 

The goal, is to maintain the lines of inclusion and exclusion that are between the in-group and the out-group (the out-group is variously portrayed in highly industrialized countries to be the Middle and Upper Classes [Petty Bourgeois and Bourgeois], or the Managers and Capitalists big and small).

Living up to the standards of morality means sacrificing specific desires and temptations (regardless of the your situation that you may find yourself in) in favor of virtue rewards 

Don’t ever eat meat. Don’t be against (insert Democrat/Liberal 2.0 pet cause here), Don’t ever drive SUVs. Don’t ever work a 9–5 job. Don’t ever scab. Don’t ever vote. Don’t ever talk to a Right winger. Don’t ever take money from the government. Don’t ever pay your taxes. Don’t ever etc., etc. 

Not a very appealing way to go about living your life for any person that is interested in critically thinking about the world and evaluating what to do for oneself.

Going beyond and critiquing Morality involves constructing a critical theory of a person’s self and society (always self-critical, provisional and never totalistic) in which a defined goal of ending a person’s social alienation is never mixed up with reified partial goals. 

It involves emphasizing what we have to gain from radical critique and solidarity rather than what we must sacrifice or give up in order to live virtuous lives of politically correct morality.

Hard Atheism and the Ethics of Desire: An Alternative to Morality by Joel Marks may provide some alternatives for morality

I support a prideful sense of self empowerment while going beyond morality as I mentioned above

Morality is just popular opinion (not necessarily majority opinion). If people believe that whiteness is real and bad, then anti-racism becomes the law of the land. 

If people believe that whiteness is not real and or is good, then pro whiteness or whiteness neutral policies become or remain the law of the land. 

This pertains to all things from pushing for more women CEOs, women fighting on the front lines in the military, same sex marriage, transgender rights etc. Good and bad, right or wrong,  morality is simply group opinion. Always has been that way and as is so currently like that

When Noam Chomsky critiques US imperialism and warmongering (‘foreign policy’), he doesn't spend too much of his time on the question of ”Do policy planners sincerely believe their own b.s about human rights or building democracy?” or the question of “Are they really only fully cynical and self-serving?”.  

Chomsky seeks the objective outcome of their actions, and the wider systemic forces that power up people who make those types of decisions, without regards to their internal motivation. If anything, Chomsky is more scared of the true believers than he is of the corrupt cynics.

We aren't Saint Peter. We aren't in a place to judge what people truly have in their hearts. We want to try to build more efficient social movements and to empower people in poverty and in the working class

We have to look at what is working and not throw too much time away psychoanalyzing people in an attempt to answer unanswerable questions about what people have going on inside of their head.

This further helps us express a stronger argument. If we could show proof that a given policy is terrible, even if the intention behind said policy is pure and nice, we can come up with better policies to create. If we must show proof that someone is a bad faith actor, we end up clashing over personalities. 

We will too, inevitably, be alleged to be acting in bad faith, leading us to the virtual circular firing squad. use it has to wipe away our ability to talk and strengthen movements. We don't have to do that to obtain victory... and be on guard of the persons who claim that violence is a solution each and every time. Throughout the history of the world, violence has ruined a heck of a lot more movements than it has lead to victory.

However my conscious, me supporting some aspects of Common good Constitutionalism and my religion views on morality balances this out to where I am Left wing on morality

My take on good and evil is this. For Marxists and Marxians like myself, there isn’t any sort of "purest form" of humanity. Humanity is a construct that is shaped by the material conditions that it is surround by. 

Our understanding of the world is not existential in a kind of pure and proper state, and then warped away from that. Our existential state is a by product of the conditions which exist underneath us.

The wealthy bourgeois are heavily incapable of understating or existing in a society that doesn’t elevate them, as it has done so far. 

In their existences, there is no guilty voice in the back of their heads saying to them "this cannot be right" since they do not experience injustices of their own in the same way we might see such a thing -- they see the actions that they do as good and needed and righteous, because if they don’t do said actions it would be a chaotic world filled with disorder and discontinuity, and only due to their 'righting' of the world (in their viewpoint) will the world become alleviated from this catastrophe. 

They can only literally see themselves as the job creators and benefactors of the humans they deem as ‘lesser’ existing underneath themselves.

Karl Marx was concerned with social structure and historical causality, not taking into account every human idea. Marx was a historical materialist, while Georg Hegel was a historical idealist. 

Georg Hegel understood historical movement to have originated in the unfolding of a collective consciousness, while Karl Marx placed it within the changes in humanity’s material conditions of productive life. And so, it's truly the struggle between the classes that's animated history, it is not some grand pronouncements made about human progress and betterment or whatever else is claimed.

How idealism is wrong is not that ideas can’t have influence or be powerful, but that ideas are not likely to take root if the material conditions for them are not amenable. 

Now, we are not "vulgar Marxists/Marxians" who believe that the economic situation leads to everything in the realm of ideas. Marxism does not imply that the ideas that make up the collective consciousness at a given time were in some way causally generated from material conditions. 

As Karl Marx stated, people (as agents who have free will) do build the world, but they don't start from chosen circumstances. To use a more current choice of words, you might say that things are "overdetermined" by numerous factors, which includes material conditions and ideas.

Insurrectionary anarchism is a good way to gain self empowerment where one can feel joyful of themselves and go beyond morality . It is truly revolutionary, relies on informal organization and small affinity group type of organizations. This creates targeted methods, permanent class conflict and a refusal to negotiate or compromise with class enemies all to create a better world

Two types tangiblely better worlds we can create using such truly revolutionary and self powering methods ,are a Bioregional /Libertarian Municipal society or the type of pro environmental society I outline here

Revolution and insurrection are not synonymous. The former is radical change of conditions, of  prevailing status or condition , the state or society, and is thus a political or social act.

The latter has a transformation of conditions which is an inevitable result, but doesn’t start from that, but it starts the discontent of human beings with themselves; it’s not an armed uprising, but of a rising up of people, without the regard for the arrangements that spring from it. 

The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged. It instead seeks to arrange ourselves, and set no radiant hopes on any institutions. Permanent revolutions are good because they change things in a manner where revoltions don’t take people by surprise since they are ongoing. 

It is not a fight versus the establishment, since, if this prospers, the establishment would collapse of itself. 

It is only a working of a person’s way out of the establishment. If they leave the establishment, it is dead and falls into decay. Since now their aim would not be the overthrow of the established order but their rising up above it, their intention and action would not be a political or social intention and action, but, since they are directed really toward themselves and their ownness, an egoistic intention and action

The revolution demands that a person makes arrangements; the insurrection demands that a person stand or raise themselves up

Jesus was not a revolutionary, but he was instead an insurrectionist, a rebel. To quote Max Stirner,

“The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]"     

Good quote by Hannah Ardent "Generally speaking, violence always rises out of impotence. It is the hope of those who have no power to find a substitute for it and this hope, I think, is in vain. Violence can destroy power, but it can never replace it."

I support outsiders who band together in their individualistic struggle against society and in pursuance of their own curiosity, pride, and instinct against society. We need more political hegemony of citizens who don’t have a lot of influence or political voice

I support devolution of powers. Something between states’ rights (including the California independence movement) and something that fuses together California melt culturalism, open localism and 

I believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy and that is wrong and we need to stop that abuse

I feel liberty and equality can’t be implemented within the state, since it interrogates all forms of domination and hierarchy. See here for more. The full state as institution is the source of evil throughout  the entirety of history.

So hence my views throughout this blog. We want more social freedoms. 

“The limits of political emancipation appear at once in the fact that the state can liberate itself from constraint without man himself being really liberated; that a state may be a free state without man himself being a free man.” Karl Marx, (1843)

Humans lived in societies that did not have formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires. So we should get back to that way of life

Until the state is abolished, I conditionally am ok with the state and similar institutions nudging people to make decisions that I deem defensible that serve their own long-term interests

At minimum there should be a social contract of consent between us citizens and the State which includes the non-aggression principle which i support. This can maybe include a non woke, non liberal 2.0 metaphysical social contract that is rooted in the theories of Hobbes, Locke, and/or Rousseau

The government is wrong for getting involved in schools (like Ron Desantis in Florida or the DOJ with teachers unions or Gavin Newsom requiring students take Ethnic study classes), for restricting religious freedom (like banning burquas in France or allowing Satanic groups to hurt Christianity, Islam and Judaism), trying to restrict gun rights, trying to limit migration (like Joe Biden’s 42 policy) and slippery slope things that may come from that

I support social justice. Right wing alternative facts don’t matter when there is justice to be had

I support grass-roots empowerment and e-democracy, and direct democracy. The more hands on Americans are with politics, the more this idea fromMark Twain can be realized:  

“Moral evolution can happen many times apart of the government/state and relations between people can emerge with freedom from the government/state. Most relationships in life should not be characterized as conflict as the left and right might have it. It's good to have mutual and humane respect for others as individuals.   It's also good to do positive and unselfish things without having to grapple with the political ramifications of doing those positive things.  “

It's a known concept that society moves generally left and more accepting over time as people realize other groups are also... Just people.

I don’t believe that the Constitution is infallible and I think it has a few issues. I support bringing back the Articles of the Confederation only if it won’t be abused by right wingers

Even though I am an anti statist,  I do not fetishize states rights (I don’t even really care that much about states rights tbh) and I am not a constitutionalist .I do not support the Tenth Amendment . 

I believe in some ways the constitution has failed us .But at the same time our laws should be grounded in the Constitution . 

I support much higher social justice, but the type of higher social justice that realizes the sad fact that the western idea of human rights are rooted in colonialism and white supremacy

Maybe Common good Constitutionalism might be a good way to fix our Constitutional issues . This sort of meshes with my views on rights (like moral rights, natural rights, positive rights etc) throughout this blog. It also meshes with my views and ideals of Civic Nationalism, social solidarity, and 4pt 

For example, Common good Constitutionalism says that "Catholicism itself holds that the natural law is written in the hearts of all men and women, and is in principle accessible to the universal natural reason common to all”. 

Thomas Aquinas wrote that law is “an ordinance of reason made for the common good by him or her who has charge of the community, and promulgated". Common good constitutionalism adopts this definition of law, and it treats positive law as a promulgated ordinance of reason, where "ordinance of reason" invokes that law which is ascertainable reason, or the natural law. 

Natural law provides the background legal principles, like "do good and avoid evil," which are not necessarily determinate as applied to concrete cases. 

Positive law, thus, is made when a public authority makes a practical determination within the scope of the natural law.

Like public safety is furthered by having automobiles drive on one side of the road, but nothing about public safety in and of itself requires choosing one side of the road or the other side of the road. So within the requirements of public safety, the public authority is free to determine a concrete application, which is driving on the left or right side.

Within the context of judiciary, the interpretation of legal texts should be made in light of the natural law principles that are made solid by the text. They require review for rationality, but only if the positive law doesn’t offend reason (the background natural law principles like the judiciary should defer to the legislating authority.) 

Back to the driving example, to require driving on the left side of the road doesn’t offend reason, nor does driving on the right offend reason. Both sides further the common good by promoting public roadway safety, and so either determination that is made by the legislature should be deferred to.

Common good in Common good Constitutionalism is not defined as a utilitarian aggregation of individual goods, and it is not defined as a tyrannical subjugation of the individual to the community. Instead, it is the unification of individual and community goods which leads to personal and social flourishing.

A Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals judge once wrote in his concurrence in United States v. Tabor this   

“The classical judge would attempt to discern what common good is desired by the statute and recognize that a statute can have a purpose toward the good of the individual, a purpose toward the good of the community, and an additional good in harmonizing the interests between the two. A statute—a lex—is an attempt to codify a higher law that a nation or a people all know to be true and good, even if it were to limit individual freedom in certain circumstances."

So according go this, individual goods or rights should be justified in light of their contribution to the flourishing of the community

I see Progressive originalism as Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned according to this article , as positive in some ways. Progressive originalism means that the Fourth Political theory and Common good constitutionalism can adopt certain progressive ideas due to Progressive originalism giving them an. excuse to do so. This means that progressivism has a timeless value to it, which a positive attribute to have 

The a-temporal structure of principles and values is one of the core tenants of the Fourth Political theory  and Common good constitutionalism similarly upholds timeless values written ‘on the hearts of men/women’.

Moreover, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Progressive originalism may further be good by putting us on a collision course with the correct knowledge that many of the US’s founding fathers themselves were favorable to abolitionism, with some of our founding fathers being actual abolitionists themselves. 

That would prove to them the US’s Founders were not racists.

I support maximum freedom

“Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently”. quote by Rosa L

I champion diversity and protecting people’s inalienable right to pursue their version of the American dream without questions or interference. Diversity is cool

I have a strong sense of self and resistance to conformity and certain types of traditions 

The Moral authority Law (verbal ‘violence’[extreme un pcness, online harassment] non physical violent and non sexual laws like select victimless crime laws, punitive laws and unjust laws, basically the type of laws Agorists and Benjamin Tucker want to break for an Anarchist society or the type of laws that Rosa Parks correctly broke in the 1960s) and Human Rights (for the most part) etc are the only ideas that aren’t physically tangible or touchable concepts. 

Christianity also is abstract as God purposely made Christianity like that  Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs

Those ideas are spooks because they are only ever a made-up idea that the individual has created, the idea of a good citizen is defined by people and individuals and yet, it has become a corporeal and ever existing concept and phenomena which compels people to act in accordance. 

Individuals are haunted by their own ideas, this idea has become real and now forces people to follow it. People decided what a good citizen was and made up the consequences for breaking this "rule" and now we are trapped due to us embracing  our own ideas . There are no sacred ideas, objective facts or real meanings (apart from higher powers)  But still, I am a tolerant person who fights injustices 

I am tolerant in a traditionally liberal (NON Liberal 2.0) way.  I am basically this type of tolerant

I support grace and tolerance, integrity and smart innovation 

Mark Twain said it best "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"

“If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You. Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative. When Old, You Have No Brain”

Liberals cutting off friends because they are not pro LGBTQ or them saying social issues are the only issues that matter is wrong, Eurocentric and childish. You can’t be an Anti Imperialist if you are like that

It is ok to in justifiable circumstances for the use of the state to achieve social justice , to get power , people at the top (gov) need to weild it to them from their pedestal of power

Having a savior complex can give people with such a complex who help others meaning in their lives and self worth. But people should try to force themselves to help others for unselfish reasons before helping others

I am against people throwing other people, especially in work and politics under the bus

I am against deprivation. Ignoring deprivation is morally objectionable. Is is fine NOT to identify any particular solution for deprivation as morally required or permitted since that’s a separate question. It is fine to defend a wide range of responses to said deprivation consistent with justice/prudence (as long as those responses are effective)

I am against subordination and I support using force against physical, economical and psychological threats (within reason). Once we get rid of subordination, all our issues as a society will be fixed

A case can be made that having too much freedom is not a good thing .There must be a limit to freedom somewhere.

I support freedom of expression

I support free inquiry, open inquiry and curiosity

I support experimentation and free expression

I support the complicated heterodoxy and somewhat naive open spirit of US politics

I support post left postmodernist aesthetic groups of intellectual provocateurs (in the positive meaning of the word)

I believe that political freedom is sadly sustained by a deeper unfreedom, at least under Liberal Capitalism. I echo Vladimir Lenin's distinction that he made between formal and actual freedom, in that liberal society only contains formal freedom, which is “freedom of choice within the coordinates of the existing power relations", while it prohibits actual freedom, which is "the site of an intervention that undermines these very coordinates”

In these modern conditions of Liberal 2.0 censorship, we 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom

Karl Marx made a valuable point with his argument that the market economy, in a unique way combines political and personal freedom with social unfreedom: personal freedom (like freely selling oneself on the market) is the very form of my unfreedom

I reject the Marxist full derision of 'formal freedom', since it is necessary for critique. When we are formally free, only then can we become aware just how limited this freedom actually is. This type of thought plays into my views on Afro Pessimism, anti statism, Libertarianism, Marxism and related views

I am against revisionism

I am against federal tyranny

I am Anti Authoritarian. I have disdain for authoritarian authority (and some other forms of authority) and hierarchies

I fight against the will of the authoritative state apparatus majority. See this for more (I echo that Tweet)

I get triggered by Authoritarian Right ideologies

I fight for people not to assimilate into the authoritative state apparatus or authoritative right’s majority’s hive mind

However the anti authoritarian movement is so over the top and goes too far at times, it makes anti authoritarianism seem like reverse fascism to me. Freedom of assembly isn’t infinite

In some ways I feel (from a far left Tankie perspective) that anti authoritarianism is fascist (or at least the type directed at the USSR, China in the last half century, and similar Tankie countries)

I make a general call for liberty and free association  through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in every aspect of human life

It is wrong and misguided to blame altruistic people for what they perceive as society’s ills instead of blaming themselves or other more logical factors

I am against anti totalitarian humanism. We are all human

I support self control. I am against Totalitarianism

I support bodily autonomy. I feel that only the self may rule their own person.

I support individualism, but both individualism and social anarchism are useful

I am an Individualist and I support Individual sovereignty.  

I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom. I recognize that the family unit and household can be as exploitative as the factory. I am strongly in favor of individual liberty. I support emancipation of the individual. I support Individualism . (but not blindly or rugged laissez faire)

I balance between the Individual and the state  

I support Individual liberty and unifies the social, individualist, and market schools of anarchist thought,

I am ok with rugged Individualism but as a force of Individuals each bringing their own unique reality to compliment each other in a moral relativist sort and rugged sort of way 

Sacrificing yourself for the 'greater good' is futile since our society is made up of individuals instead of a cohesive unit that is separate from the individual. Collective control is not consistent with anarchism and is authoritarian  Real freedom can only happen in a truly free society

This is because I am no fan or radical cheerleader of collectivism and I find it pretty problematic

I feel that collectivism is of the subordination of the individual to the group.

I reject the ideology of collective responsibility. This rejection does not mean I refuse social or class analysis. It means rather that I remove the moral judgment from such an analysis, while I refuse the dangerous practice of blaming individuals for activities that have been done in the name of (or that have been attributed to), a social category of which they are said to be a part, but about which they had no choice — i.e., “Jewish”, “male”, “white”, etc.). 

On the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, can only happen when we stop identifying ourselves essentially in terms of our social identities. 

I do not really support the idea that anyone, either due to “privilege” or due to supposed membership in a particular oppressed group, owes uncritical solidarity to any struggle or movement

I recognize that such a conception is a major obstruction in any serious revolutionary process. 

Creating collective projects and activities to serve the needs and desires of the individuals involved, and not vice versa. 

I recognize that the fundamental alienation imposed by capital is not based in any hyper individualist ideology that it may promote. I instead believe that it stems from the collective project of production that it imposes, and this expropriates our individual creative capacities to fulfill its aims. 

I recognize the liberation of each and every individual to be able to determine the conditions of his or her existence in free association with others of his or her choosing. (i.e., the individual and social reappropriation of life) as the primary aim of revolution.

Being anti Individualism is misanthropist

I am indifferent to Bourgeois Individualism 

I am ok with the 4pt views on Individualism and Collectivism

I am against collective Individualism . I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom

I view the individual and the will of the individual over external determinants including society, groups, tradition (variable), and ideologies . I view the eventual abolition of the state as the fullest realization of individual liberty . 

Without any government, I believe that individuals will pursue their personal objectives and work together in mutual self interest to create a stable and harmonious hierarchyless/patriarchyless society.

I support and believe in Self Determination, self reliance and not making excuses. No one has it easy, life is hard. It's human nature that some people may have it easier than other people. 

To quote Rosa L “People who do not move don’t notice their chains”

I support the inalienable right of self preservation of Americans against punitive and unsanctioned control

I believe in the ascendancy of the individual over and against nation, class, and any other modifier used to divide us

Society in our socioeconomic world is governed by consistent and precise laws. No individual or religious faction or political force should interfere with those laws

I support Left Center Libertarian Paternalism. I am glad that non marginalized activists, politicians etc use their higher up positions to lift up marginalized groups to where they are to give them equality. 

It is like someone who is at the top of a ladder reaching down to pull people stuck on the ladder up.  I support via a decentralized government/federal state (without concentration of power and anti tyranny) nudging to make this happen by safeguarding social rights (like education and healthcare), promoting an inclusive country and social rights (like public education) .     This method would be based off of egalitarian liberalism combined with progressivism (with particular reference to the social liberalism in Europe),

I oppose the view that the number of adherents drawn to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the domination institutions and as a life reappropriation 

My partial, or at times rejection or my wariness of every institutionalization or formalization of decision making, and indeed of every conception of decision making as a moment separated from life and practice. 

This partial, or at times rejection or my wariness , as well, of the evangelistic method that strives to win over the masses. 

Such a method assumes that the theoretical exploration is at an end, that a person has the answer to which all are to adhere to and that therefore every method is acceptable for getting the message out even if that method contradicts what the people are saying. 

This leads a person to seek followers who accept their position rather than comrades and accomplices with which to carry on that person’s explorations. 

The practice instead of striving to carry out a person’s projects, as best a person can, in a way that is consistent with one’s ideas, dreams and desires, by extension attracting potential accomplices with whom to develop affinity relationships and to expand the revolt practice.

I have either (1) A Max Stirner-esque critique of dogma and ideological thinking as a distinct phenomenon in favor of "critical self-theory" at individual and communal levels. Or (2) A Bouvier-esque critique of there being no inherent meaning to life, yet that we're forced to grapple with the physical and environmental drives we were raised with, to figure out how we want to engage with our fellow man/woman from there. Or (3) Some entirely different foundation.

I support decentralization—subsidiarity, secession (in ways that mesh with my blogs), nullification, and localism—for  political units completely down to the level of the individual as a moral end and as a method of expanding choice and competition in a state for all individuals. In some ways the State is not the same thing as governance

As a Libertarian socialist I support decentralized structures that are based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations like citizens' assemblies, libertarian municipalism, trade unions and workers' councils. This can be seen throughout my blog

I am against the subordination of local political units to a central authority for social justice principles