I hope everyone I know is ready for a landslide of socially unacceptable words
not that many people interact with me here anyway lmao
Communism: Immoral by its very nature when enforced, too reliant on good nature when voluntary. It's stupid and we know that, there's not anything new here.
Socialism: In the words of a professor who grew up in the Soviet Union, a man I have great respect for, "These socialists in American politics are just Marxists, they don't look to history like they should be doing. They are ignorant and optimistic." Socialism is just communism-lite, and I don't mean that in any joking manner.
Capitalism: By the very nature of its original intent, capitalism is an apolitical system. It's an economic system, and what you do with that is where the politics come into play. Laissez-faire absolute free markets are objectively the best system, as they allow the citizenry to decide with their wallets what to support, but modern globalism and cheapening of labor and goods have made it an impossible dream and a relic of a simpler time. Antitrust measures are the only way to keep every industry from ending up more or less in a complete monopoly.
*Corporatism/Crony Capitalism: Literal cancer, lobbying is the worst thing on this Earth.
Liberalism: Classical liberalism is fine, and once upon a time I was way into it, but on some level it too relies too much on a goodness of human nature and an inherent equal value of all humans just for being. I have no issue with it morally, but it's not really for me. Neoliberalism, however, is a blight on society. It isn't about egalitarianism or pulling people up, it's about recompense for perceived slights and dragging others down. For all my joking about "it's cancer," I legitimately believe that the neoliberal establishment is one of the worst things in America today. It is more divisive than any rhetoric spread by Trump, regardless of what the media will tell you. "You're a white male," indeed.
Conservatism: Same issue as above. Classical conservatism is something I agree with 100%, not that social change is bad, but that social change should be organic and occur naturally, rather than being forced or revolutionary. Revolution only breeds hostility from those who weren't part of said revolution. That said, I don't think this is practical or applicable in modern America, because the two party system means any change is considered revolutionary and inorganic by the other side. Neoconservatism is pointless but I generally agree with the economic aspects at least. The religious portion is retarded.
Libertarianism: Strictly the most moral form of governance one can have, it will never work any more than communism. It's too reliant on Kantian belief that had been more or less demonstrated categorically false. It only works if you take a view of personal accountability that even Rand would find questionable.
Monarchism: To be blunt, this is where I stand at this point. Is it the ideal moral good? No. Is it perfect? No. However, what it does do is keep the unwashed and unqualified masses out of politics. The common man has no interest in the actual minutiae of politics or the stances of candidates, and telling them it's their "duty" to participate in the political process just leads to what we have now. Of course, the value of monarchy depends on a) the monarch, and b) the systems that keep him in check. Consider England after the Magna Carta. It worked well, and the issues that struck them most greatly can generally not be attributed to the throne proper. A strong aristocracy can keep a king from doing anything stupid, and a strong king can keep an overconfident aristocrat from rebelling. Speaking of which...
Aristocracy: As understood in the modern sense, it's just monarchy without any common ground to keep said aristocrats in check. But then, as understood in the modern sense it's just a synonym for plutocracy, so I mean, see above on the unwashed masses. As originally conceived by the Greeks, we see effectively the ideal monarchy in action, one leader chosen by the best people in action. However, see communism, libertarianism, and anarchy for "things that only work in theory." It does generally descend into plutocracy without strong checks.
Dictatorship: What kind? Fascism? That works. I don't have much else to say on the matter. See above for my opinion on keeping the unwashed masses out of politics. It's nationalist and it enforces a strong national identity, caring for its own first. I don't have much issue with it, even if it is a dirty word. I used to fit in here too.
Anarchism: Theoretically the moral ideal, it doesn't work and it never will. We all know that.
Objectivism: It's just existentialism applied politically. I've already read Heidegger and I didn't agree with him either. Interesting though, and I do appreciate the power of the self presented. Nietzsche was a bit more uplifting though.
Secular Humanism: I think intelligent people are capable of being moral without religion. Too lenient though. Spare the rod, spoil the child, etc. It's like weak parenting in political form.
Theocracy: Depends on the religion. Morally objectionable, but see monarchism and dictatorship for a more practical consideration. It lacks checks on power like those do though, so it's generally a resounding "please no."
Listening to: Initial D Super Eurobeat Mix (NTD)
Reading: Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy
Playing: I wish
Drinking: Irish breakfast tea