So I'm a little confused

This is the first time I'm posting here, and I come asking for advice. I would like to know which political party I fit into.
I'm a pacifist
I believe in a weak central government
I don't believe in this national health care bullshit
what else do you need to know to tell?

You're a RONPAUL

You think that any of the existing parties have a clue?  None of them have the answer, but most people are resistant to change, so they continue to align themselves with one of the two major parties that, in their limited view, best represent their values and interests.  Unfortunately, the larger organizations are interested in little more than maintaining themselves, so they compromise, and their compromise only serves a status quo that's constantly eroded by natural entropy.  The smaller parties still fall somewhere along the spectrum next to one of the majors, and do little more than influence them, basically functioning as "squeaky wheels".
The kind of thinking that got us here, is not going to get us out.  It's not the late 18th century.  It's time for a full on reconstitution of our organizational/authoritarian structures, and it's gonna happen one way or another.  Either through the process that's always forced change, catastrophe, or maybe, just maybe, we're about to reach some kind of intellectual tipping point, and we'll be able to make some rational intelligent decisions without waiting 'till the proverbial knife's at our throats.  Either way, we'll be getting what we deserve.  Vote Starfleet party.  It's our last chance before a deluge of suffering the likes of which hasn't been seen.  Starfleet party supports a world that has banished the institutionalized hypocrisy that currently passes for governance.  Starfleet is not a government.  Starfleet is dedicated to the principle that all people must be free, and that it's greatest responsibility is to provide that which is necessary for the free to succeed.

>>3
What if people vote to have capitalism and governments to coordinate their efforts?

Pacifism is the most evil of all philosophies.

>>4
Most will!  And these voluntary societies will often further elect to interact with other societies forming mutually beneficial Federations.  But the foundation must be that each individual is free to opt out, and guaranteed the basic necessary resources to survive, and through effort, prosper.  
The Starfleet Party's social design is bipartite, consisting of those who choose to serve common interests from within a, self supporting, authoritarian framework, and those who choose to serve their own interests, whatever they may be, and command themselves.  Neither choice is, in and of itself, morally superior.  They are simply the two modes of human action, and though both are necessary, the systems that have attempted to reconcile the two have failed us all, and extinguished even the memory of true freedom.

>>5
Nonsense.  Though you may argue that it permits evil, pacifism is passive, and therefore incapable of the kind of malicious action that would make it "the most evil of all philosophies".
This kind of hyperbole serves no good purpose.

Its not an *argument* that it permits evil, its an objective fact. No matter how evil a person or situation is and no matter how easy to counter it would be. Pacifism means you cannot fight against it.

Pacifism says that there is no value or virtue that is worth defending; friends, family, free speech and freedom are things that are left to be sacrificed to a naive and evil philosophy.

>>8
It is an "objective fact" if, and only if the perpetrator of the evil act, or the act itself, is in, or occurs in a sphere of potential reaction proximate to the pacifist.  Furthermore, passive resistance is an effective strategy for fighting evil that is consistent with pacifism.
Pacifism holds that the greatest value is peace, and the best way to defend "friends, family, free speech, and freedom" are through nonviolent means.  Though I do not always agree, I do see it as a noble philosophy, and believe that the kind of intolerance and hatred that you yourself are exhibiting is the main reason that I don't think it works in practice.  Rather, I don't think it works well enough for me.  Though a fellow named Ghandi did seem to have some success.

Great, arguing semantics. Yeah what else could 'permit' *possibly* mean except that?
Just defining what pacifism is and then saying you think its noble is not an augment it is an attestation.

I was reading through a dictionary (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 2001) and I came across this: "pacifism ... 3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war."  The definition sounds particularly malicious since it suggests the various motivations by which nations make choices - selfish or selfless - are trivial.

>>10
What? Semantics?  You've got nerve.  To bad you don't have the smarts to match.  Logic is not semantics.  You incorrectly stated that "Its not an *argument* that it permits evil, its an objective fact"  I corrected your erroneous assertion by clearly stating the limited and specific circumstances under which it could be argued within an adversarial framework that pacifism "permits" evil.  I then corrected your ridiculous assertion that "Pacifism says that there is no value or virtue that is worth defending" by stating its primary value, peace, and its means of defense.  And all of this following my first response at >>7 that completely invalidated your initial statement, that "Pacifism is the most evil of all philosophies"
You're a mean, ignorant, poorly educated little fucking joke.
>>11
Now that's some semantics.  Malicious? Trivial?  Let me tell you something about war.  I've been in two, there's nothing but suffering, death and destruction, and in comparison, most things are pretty fucking trivial. 
God damned chicken hawks.
You wanna know about war?  You wanna be a warrior?  Here's the only rule, and the only reason to fight: Protect the weak.
And this includes the pacifists.  Anything else, any other reasoning, rationalizations, ideas or ideals, and you're just another murderer.  Another adherent to one of the many truly evil philosophies.
Now on the off, off, way off chance that you actually served, unlike Bush and his handlers, then you have some shit that you need to come to terms with.  Pacifism is the antithesis of war.  They are the two extremes on the same line, and any sensible person knows which end is more desirable.

"by stating its primary value, peace, and its means of defense."

Sorry, what exactly is its means of defense?

>>12
The only reason you seem intimidating is because you come off as yelling; I have no clue what a "chicken hawk" is either.

I have nothing against "protecting the weak" as a purpose to fight.  I don't see how that brings about an ultimate resolution to the problem of there being weak who need protecting, or if the weak are the ones doing the aggressing, but it's a honorable day-to-day reason and one I wholeheartedly support.

But that's why I don't believe in strict pacifism.  It doesn't solve the problem it tries to avoid - war.  I don't believe in strict war either, though I hope that one should go without the need to say.  I resist your polarization of war and pacifism and straddle the center of that line - both war and peace are necessary but it's what you turn to first, and maybe second, that defines who you are.  You should not strive for peace but a situation where peace (and choice) can exist.  Stretching pacifism to the very limits for the sake of "being peaceful" is extreme.  Then it just becomes a bluffing situation with no endgame and often unintentional, lingering side-effects.

>>14
He's an Internet tuff guy, and is probably all of thirteen years old, pretending to be a soldier on the Intertubes.

I've got another definition for you--and him, if he's still around.

Pacifism is a cowardly and parasitic form of moral aberration which can only exist in wealthy and successful societies in which there are people who are willing to do the unpleasant duties the pacifist rejects.

Here's another:  a society becomes decadent when it has goals for which it will no longer tolerate the necessary means.

Spoiler: Gandhi succeeded because Britain was a war-torn democracy and many of his supporters were violent thugs.

>>13
From >>9
passive resistance is an effective strategy for fighting evil that is consistent with pacifism.
>>14
From Wikipedia:
"Chickenhawk" is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age.  The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
As to the rest... like I said, I'm not a pacifist either.
>>15
That's a tired and bullshit dodge.  I'm a real live middle aged veteran, and though there's no way I can prove this short of identifying myself, a discerning reader will hear the ring of truth in my words. Regarding your "definition", anyone who knows anything about the many nonviolent resistance movements throughout history knows that most began in already oppressed societies, and though you can question their philosophy, no man who knows anything about courage can deny that sometimes it takes more courage to not fight back.  Educate yourself, internet smart guy.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
>>16
Do I sense a butthurt member of a former empire here, mate?  Here's one scene from India in 1930. 
In Peshawar, satyagraha was led by a Muslim Pashto disciple of Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, who had trained a 50,000 member army of nonviolent activists called Khudai Khidmatgar.[48] On April 23, 1930, Ghaffar Khan was arrested. A crowd of Khudai Khidmatgar gathered in Peshawar's Kissa Khani (Storytellers) Bazaar. The British ordered troops to open fire with machine guns on the unarmed crowd, killing an estimated 200-250.[49] The Pashtun satyagrahis acted in accord with their training in nonviolence, willingly facing bullets as the troops fired on them.[50] One British Indian Army regiment, troops of the renowned Royal Garhwal Rifles, refused to fire at the crowds. The entire platoon was arrested and many received heavy penalties, including life imprisonment.
Nice.  You must be very proud.

The Moriori were a branch of the New Zealand Māori that colonized the Chatham Islands and eventually became hunter-gatherers. Their lack of resources and small population made conventional war unsustainable, so it became customary to resolve disputes nonviolently or ritually. Due to this tradition of nonviolence, the entire population of 2000 people was enslaved, killed or cannibalized when 900 Māori invaded the island in 1835.

>>17
evil that is consistent with pacifism.

what is this?

IF YOU WERE A PACIFIST THEN YOU WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE STATE!!! they are based on violence btw.

>>20
Oh?  Please explain.
Quietly.

>>1
Anti-Federalist.

>>17
Training 50,000 nonviolent activists didn't make the literally millions of potentially militant Indian men, Royal Garhwal Rifles included, disappear. If 50000 pacifists was all that India could conjur up in it's defence you'd be sucking britfag cock like a little bitch as we speak.

"ah loves mah massa, mmh dat dik taste soo good, ah sho duz loves suckin his dick an swallowin mah massas cum, specially afta it been up mah ol' shit chute, ah do whatevuh it takes to please mah massa"

Face it, "pacifism" doesn't work unless you're holding a big stick.

>>21
You're chillin all alone~~ havin some chicken gizzard when the taxman busts in through the door and says to you "HEY!! YOU DIDN'T PAY YOUR INCOME TAX!!!" you say "wha? i dont remember signing up for this shit" and he's like "social contract nigga~~" and you're like "no such thing exists fag" and he's like "well i dont care" and he comes to deprive you of your property (yourself) by sending you to the nearest sodomy store (aka prison)by force! all for refusing to pay for things you didn't approve of liek military spending and corporate welfare.

>>24
Survivalists pay no tax beyond the occasional sales tax.

>>24
Nice story.  Interesting writing style.  Unfortunately it fails to fully prove your statement:
IF YOU WERE A PACIFIST THEN YOU WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE STATE!!! they are based on violence btw.
Ideally, citizenship is voluntary, and in a democratic state taxes, if they exist, are determined by a majority.  So their payment, and even the penalties for non-payment, are, in a sense, voluntary.  I understand that this isn't the way things happen in practice today.  The fact is that none of us are free, and that because of contemporary nationalist framework, we are all restrained by the threat, and use of, violence, but to assume that any state, any societies political system is "based on violence", is wrong, and counterproductive anarchist rhetoric.


>>25
And what semi-habitable hole can you hide in to avoid paying real estate taxes?  Estate and inheritance taxes?  The taxes incidental when getting medical care and buying fuel?  Besides, some of us like to live around people.

>>24
I see what you're saying, but a lot of that tax money goes to things of which you have approved, like roads and schools.  Once you accepted the benefits of society, you implicitly made a promise to help support these benefits.

>>26
You get what you pay for.

>>26
And what if one doesn't accept tyranny of the majority? Either secession of themselves and their property from the state or statist violence is used to set an example against self- ownership, the slaves need to know the place after all!
>>27
But, but, but I could pay for those things voluntarily!!!
Don't tell me I signed some illusory social contract when I came into this world!

>>29
Yeah, well you're preaching to the choir there.  Personally, I reckon it's better to be a whore than a slave, so I have skills that I use to make money.  I work overseas so I can avoid taxes, I don't own property, or a car, or anything that connects me to the system except a passport(or perhaps two), I prepare myself to fight when enough of the slaves figure out what's going on, and I teach.  Unfortunately, the truth of one of my favorite quotes keeps ringing in my ears:  If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I would have freed thousands more.
Harriet Tubman
I also look for a way to move forward.  I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who "wave the flags of discontent", but I'm getting old, and I've seen the same old shit rhetoric and hyperbole for a long time now and know that it often does as much harm as good.  Anarchy, laissez faire capitalism, and the Jeffersonian model are clues, not answers.  They've had their shots and failed, so to think that they are the answer, that moving backwards is the answer, is foolish.  They are, like statism, democracy, nationalism, capitalism, marxism, and even corporatism, only part of the answer.  Factors in the equation that will solve for the next system.
What really pisses me off is that every time I start to try to solve it, some idiot starts yapping about utopian idealism.  The slaves have actually been convinced that the pursuit of a better system is a fools errand.  What if the framers of the US Constitution had believed that?  Trying to design the best possible society is not utopian.  When I set out to build a house I begin with the most perfect design I can come up with, given the materials and techniques I have to work with.  I know that in the end, I'll have used up quite a few tubes of caulk, but I try god dammit, I try. And it bears repeating.  The kind of thinking that brought us to this point, is not going to get us out of it.  Which brings me back to >>6

>>30
Are you a political realist? No one ever achieved any real changes by doing what was rational all the time or going with the flow, ironically it is more realistic to take absurd Kierkegaardian leaps of faith to change the world. Emphasis on "ironic", I'm not a christfag, bear with me...

When you design a house you will make mistakes, but you know what those mistakes are and how to improvise. You aren't trying anything new.

It's the same with political theory, or anywhere logic is utilised. Defined abstractly it is essentially scientific method itself, you are testing a theory.

Back to the example of designing a house, of course while you find ways to improvise you may perform little experiments to see if you can solve a problem that arises, but after 100 years of building houses all those little experiments and little solutions will be found and at that point the only way to progress is to make bigger more expensive experiments.

Lastly and perhaps most fundamentally, these experiments shouldn't be mistaken for petty utopian idealism, they don't have to be either. Experiment is such a strong word to use in politics because of the various 20th century ideologies that despots "experimented" with, it isn't always this way however, much of what we take for granted is the result of an experiment, usually in the more technologically advanced countries. Of course preparations from the practical perspective will need to be maximised and optimised as much as possible in order to prepare for this leap and one must maintain an open and adaptive state of mind before embarking on any endeavour of this kind.

Anarchist and socialist types are retarded because they dismiss this point. Whether or not their objectives are actually desirable to begin with, it is not unreasonable to believe there is some way their dystopia could become a reality, possibly if somewhere stable and developed became minarchist to the point where the state atrophies to a ceremonial position or something. Commies probably say this already "the soviet union wasn't real communism, it wasn't ready", I would reply that taking these leaps of faith are not going to be easy, you are declaring war on entropy, fate and determinism. But I digress and have already written too much for a casual web forum.