How has the Atlas changed your political views?

[Beet]

Not much.

I think it's helped me refine my views on libertarianism though, which went from vaguely positive to negative. Whereas before I saw things in simplistic terms as 'more or less liberty', I now realize that much of libertarianism is just cannibalized conservatism, and there are even people who are convinced that the two are the same. At the same time though I've seen just how politically weak true libertarianism is. Also, John Dibble's been a reasonable libertarian who writes well.

[Platypus]

It's made me less radical and more piercing of politics, trying to find the truth of my opinions and statements. It's been 4 years since I joined and I think I've also matured a lot. I still think Australia is fantastic but I'm not as blindly nationalistic as I once was-although that probably has less to do with the forum than with my travels, and changing priorities.

[John Dibble]

When I came here I was a newly converted Libertarian zealot who was gung-ho and towing the hardcore Libertarian line. Over time the forum helped me moderate my positions to be more in line with certain realities.

[Platypus]

I wouldn't credit only the forum, but while I've been on here I've become a strong proponent for states' rights and limited government interference.

You've also moderated your views onsexuality, and I for one appreciate it.

[Willy Woz]

I think it's made me more conservative.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Admittedly I used to be rather impressionable but eventually outgrew that annoying tendency. I generally prefer to avoid letting random strangers from an Internet forum influence me more than necessary, though the various irritating obsessions associated with our beloved resident hacks sometimes nudge me in the opposite direction if they are sufficiently pervasive. If nothing else, the Atlas forum has certainly helped me discover how much I truly detest politics.

This posts reminds me why I think Everett, when she posts, is one of the few sane people on the forum.

One or two members of this forum (ie. not many) have certainly put things in a different perspective for me (*cough* Al *cough*) but I don't think it has changed my views much.

Oh and this too:

made me hate libertarians.

[Nym90]

It hasn't changed any of my views, although it has made me think about issues in ways I never had before, and more respectful of those who I disagree with. I am better at seeing the logic behind positions I don't agree with than I was before I started posting here (mind you, that was almost 7 years ago now...).

[Friz]

Since joining the board, I've become fairly more liberal and even more close-minded against conservative viewpoints.

[Sam Spade]

Since joining the board, I've become fairly more liberal and even more close-minded against conservative viewpoints.

Well, at least you're a big believer in contradiction, which I personally love.

[jokerman]

I wouldn't credit only the forum, but while I've been on here I've become a strong proponent for states' rights and limited government interference.

You've also moderated your views onsexuality, and I for one appreciate it.

I'm glad.   Yeah, my moral compass has shifted drastically to the point of me thinking it's immoral to decide ones morals for them.  No one has the right to tell you who you are is wrong or the life you live is wrong.

Wow, that's a very nihilistic view -something I find dangerously prevelant among this generation. 

[dead0man]

I'm glad.   Yeah, my moral compass has shifted drastically to the point of me thinking it's immoral to decide ones morals for them.  No one has the right to tell you who you are is wrong or the life you live is wrong.

Wow, that's a very nihilistic view -something I find dangerously prevelant among this generation. 

What the hell are you talking about?  Not wanting to force ones morals on other people is a bad thing?  To many people of "this generation" feel that way?  What planet are you on?

[Alcon]

I wouldn't credit only the forum, but while I've been on here I've become a strong proponent for states' rights and limited government interference.

You've also moderated your views onsexuality, and I for one appreciate it.

I'm glad.   Yeah, my moral compass has shifted drastically to the point of me thinking it's immoral to decide ones morals for them.  No one has the right to tell you who you are is wrong or the life you live is wrong.

Wow, that's a very nihilistic view -something I find dangerously prevelant among this generation. 

I'm socially left-leaning and I find the idea that my beliefs are "nihilistic" ridiculous and borderline offensive.

I have extremely strong moral convictions, which happen to involve finding prohibition of gay marriage abhorrent, among a number of other issues that may conflict with scripture.

I am certainly not "nihilistic."  Correlation and causation, bud.

[Verily]

Not to defend the accusation here; I agree with fezzy, deadman and Alcon that the attitude of over-interference in others' lives is repugnant and offensive.

However, I don't think that's how Preston meant it. I think he interpreted Fezzy's initial statement as referring to morals themselves being outdated, which would indeed be nihilistic and somewhat troublesome. Now, that's not the case, and I doubt Preston really appreciates being called out on so-called moral issues such as gay rights when he has demonstrated that his own views on such issues have changed.

[Alcon]

Sorry, Preston.  What Verily just said was in the back of my mind while I wrote that and, indefensibly, I posted it anyway.  He's entirely right.

[dead0man]

So you want to legislate morality?  Aggressively?  Who gets to define that morality?

[Alcon]

So you want to legislate morality?  Aggressively?  Who gets to define that morality?

We legislate morality.

Murder is a matter of morality.

[dead0man]

I'm sure that's exactly what he is talking about.

[Alcon]

I'm sure that's exactly what he is talking about.

Does it matter?

Many religious people find murder to be wrong.  It is an axiom to them.  They also find abortion wrong, axiomatically, and gay marriage wrong, axiomatically, because their scripture tells them and it is an absolute.  There is not differentiation between certain types of moral restrictions and others for them.  Murder is restricted because it is wrong, other freedoms are restricted because they are wrong.

I'm not necessarily supporting the position, but it is not without some level of internal consistency.

Edit: I'm not explaining what I'm going for with good examples.

[dead0man]

But murder does harm to another citizen, as does stealing, assault, dumping toxic waste in their backyard and burning leaves in the street.  Watching South Park doesn't hurt anybody (and don't try to bring up the "but wont somebody think of the children" excuse, change the f-ing channel).  Smoking a joint doesn't hurt anybody (else).  Eating a Twinkie, using an incandescent light bulb and teaching your kids at home aren't hurting anybody else and shouldn't be legislated even if some people think they are "wrong".

There is a HUGE difference between legislation against an act that harms other people and legislation against an act the majority of voters finds "wrong".

[ilikeverin]

Smoking a joint doesn't hurt anybody (else).

Costs of healthcare?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Healthcare?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Costs of energy?  Time until we run out of fossil fuels?

[Jake]

Smoking a joint doesn't hurt anybody (else).

Costs of healthcare?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Healthcare?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Costs of energy?  Time until we run out of fossil fuels?

Indeed. Society has deeper relationships than person-person.

[dead0man]

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

Clearly the Free market is so magical that it does not all dependant on such trifles like the level of available of natural resources.

[Jake]

I don't think an individuals healthcare is the responsibility of society. 

And we're never going to "run out of fossil fuels", it will eventually become to expensive to get out of the ground what it's worth on the open market, but we'll never "run out".  The market will take care of the rest (unless the govt farks it up with ethanol subsidies and other "hand of govt" manipulations of the market).

Uh, for that to be true somehow, oil has to be created as fast as we pump it out of the ground; and bear in mind that the oil we're currently using to near exhaustion was created over the past tens of millions of years or more. ie, we've used almost all the oil created over the past 50 million years in the past 200 years.

If we continue to remain fixated on oil as the main resource that drives our economy, we better be prepared for many more wars in the Middle East, Venezuela, the South China Sea, and elsewhere over what oil is left, because the simple fact is demand is outstripping production and sometime soon (10-50 years) demand will outstrip availible resources. That will be extremely bad. Unless resource wars and $500 barrels of oil are good things.

And an individual's health only becomes society's problem when they start demanding treatment they can't pay for. How many uninsured smokers are going to need emergency care down the road? Obese uninsured people? Diabetics? To end those people getting emergency care would require eliminating the Hippocratic Oath. Not going to happen.

[afleitch]

I've certainly became more cynical, not against politics itself but it's delivery. I've also became less tolerant of non-questioning party hacks, straddling many political camps myself. There is no good in remaining robustly unquestioning of your party. But my views I don't think have shifted that much.