I'm an INTP with highly idiosyncratic political views, but they generally align closest to Geo-Libertarianism.
In the last election I voted for Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I don't agree with him on everything and am really a bit closer to Ron Paul (or maybe even Mike Gravel), but Huckabee was was the best candidate with any chance of actually winning my state. I went for Bob Barr in the general election, because even though in some ways I liked him less than either major candidate I could not support anyone who supported TARP. (He was the only candidate from a minor party who made the ballot in my state. I knew that Georgia does not count write in votes except for candidates who have gotten enough names on a petition to register with the secretary of state, but which it turns out that 4 other candidates for the office had but I did nt realize this until later. I went ahead and did write-ins for most positions on the ballot though, including every office where someone was running unopposed. I voted my CPA dad as tax commissioner, my lawyer half-brother as solicitor general, my sister to the school board, etc.)
I strong oppose the concept of political parties on principle. Our system of plurality voting is a sham. We need to move to a system that does not require one to chose the lesser of two evils, but rather allows us to express just how evil we think each candidate is. I used to support Fractional Ballots, but lately I've moved to prefering Range Voting.
(Mock ballot studies have shown that in range voting, assuming the candidates and parties somehow did not change, the Democrats would have easily won every presidential election in over 30 years. The Democrats would also typically have a small majority in congress, with the Libertarian party being the second largest and the Green party more successful then the Republican Party. This is probably because Republicans have so often used polarizing tactics, demonizing those that they know wouldn't vote for them anyway to get those that would riled up. In range voting it is generally more important to make sure that very few voters hate you than that a plurality love you. The move to range voting would force political discussions to become far more civil.)
I am also strongly of the opinion that no one should ever be given citizenship automatically by happenstance of birth. I find both jus sangunis and jus solis to be repugnant. Citizenship should not involve some nebulous social contract, but an actually written contract that can be signed only with informed consent. I want open borders and a uniform path to citizen for everyone, where those born here or abroad have an equal duty to pass the tests determining whether or not they can consent to citizenship. I'd likely make these tests quite difficult, as the state would have a duty to provide public education only up to the levels it requires for the citizenship tests.
In the last election I voted for Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I don't agree with him on everything and am really a bit closer to Ron Paul (or maybe even Mike Gravel), but Huckabee was was the best candidate with any chance of actually winning my state. I went for Bob Barr in the general election, because even though in some ways I liked him less than either major candidate I could not support anyone who supported TARP. (He was the only candidate from a minor party who made the ballot in my state. I knew that Georgia does not count write in votes except for candidates who have gotten enough names on a petition to register with the secretary of state, but which it turns out that 4 other candidates for the office had but I did nt realize this until later. I went ahead and did write-ins for most positions on the ballot though, including every office where someone was running unopposed. I voted my CPA dad as tax commissioner, my lawyer half-brother as solicitor general, my sister to the school board, etc.)
I strong oppose the concept of political parties on principle. Our system of plurality voting is a sham. We need to move to a system that does not require one to chose the lesser of two evils, but rather allows us to express just how evil we think each candidate is. I used to support Fractional Ballots, but lately I've moved to prefering Range Voting.
(Mock ballot studies have shown that in range voting, assuming the candidates and parties somehow did not change, the Democrats would have easily won every presidential election in over 30 years. The Democrats would also typically have a small majority in congress, with the Libertarian party being the second largest and the Green party more successful then the Republican Party. This is probably because Republicans have so often used polarizing tactics, demonizing those that they know wouldn't vote for them anyway to get those that would riled up. In range voting it is generally more important to make sure that very few voters hate you than that a plurality love you. The move to range voting would force political discussions to become far more civil.)
I am also strongly of the opinion that no one should ever be given citizenship automatically by happenstance of birth. I find both jus sangunis and jus solis to be repugnant. Citizenship should not involve some nebulous social contract, but an actually written contract that can be signed only with informed consent. I want open borders and a uniform path to citizen for everyone, where those born here or abroad have an equal duty to pass the tests determining whether or not they can consent to citizenship. I'd likely make these tests quite difficult, as the state would have a duty to provide public education only up to the levels it requires for the citizenship tests.
Last edited:
