About political ideologies


One misconception is that politics "is just a matter of opinion" when in reality we can get conclusions regarding what we ought to do given a particular situation.


That however does not mean there is one true political ideology, instead what's ideal will depend on your society and its interaction with the rest of the world. What was a good idea 200 years ago might now be a very bad idea.


Leftism and secular humanism
Leftism — or Progressivism, if you prefer — is a belief system. It is based on secular humanism and relies on Critical Theory
for its understanding of society. This means that, despite claiming to value reason, the only real use of “reason” is to reject religious faith. As soon as that is done, reason is itself discarded, and Critical Theory — storytelling — comes in.

As Leon Festinger described, when a person who has deeply held beliefs encounters evidence or argument that contradicts his beliefs (called “disconfirming evidence”) he experiences cognitive dissonance. This is extremely unpleasant, a kind of mental distress. It can be resolved only in the following ways:
  1. By abandoning or changing the deeply-held belief. This is painful, especially when — as in the case of Lefitsts — the belief is part of their identity.
  2. By finding new information (or argument) that contradicts the “disconfirming” evidence. This however, takes work. It’s also nearly impossible if your belief was irrational in the first place.
  3. By persisting in the belief, despite any evidence; this cannot be done alone. It requires social support, especially from new converts (“proselytes”)
However, you can avoid all three of these difficult or unpleasant outcomes, if you merely avoid encountering any “disconfirming” evidence. In other words, if you avoid hearing or seeing anything that you disagree with.

This is why Leftists like echo chambers, even more than “conservatives.” They avoid reading things they disagree with. And censorship on Reddit is just another way to do that.

Leftism is about taking care of everyone including ones that do not want to be 'helped' in the first place
• locking up teens against their will "for their own good" even though they didn't even do anything illegal.
• involuntary psychiatric treatments "they are mentally ill so they do not know what's best for them".
• compulsory schooling.
• preventing people from killing themselves.
• not allowing people to just buy any drug they want.
• banning medical quackery.
• making it illegal to con people out of their money.
• giving big welfare checks to people unwilling/unable to work.
• free healthcare to keep unfit people alive.

If we let people be free they will do stupid decisions and thus the left prefers the government controlling most aspects of our life "for our own good" instead of allowing natural selection. Some people might actually make better decisions than the government would make for them but that will not be tolerated in a lefty society, everyone needs to be kept down to the same level.

Enforcing high taxes will require totalitarian control over the population, the taxes are needed to pay for the giant ineffective welfare state. Unfortunately over time high taxes and welfare will create a bad mentality among the population where people become increasingly irresponsible.

The left may sometimes promote liberal values to get elected but it's just about getting votes, they do not actually care about LGBT people or sexual freedom, instead when they are in power they add totalitarian control over human sexuality. If a teen has sex with a 25-year-old male the left will view it as awful exploitation that needs to be stopped.


Humanism vs societal survival of the fittest
The issue with humanism is that then instead of doing whats best for society you do what you view as 'humane' even if result in a societal liability. This means that societies heavily based on humanism will find themselves as a competetive disadvantage against societies who do not care about that and said disadvantage will depend on how much better other societies can do.

One potential issue with leftwing-humanitarian societies is that they will end up with a growing welfare burden including economic immigrants, it's not really a sustainable system since you end up with more and more people you are 'morally obligated' to take care of.

Good luck winning war when you have to do it as humane as possible against an opponent who doesn't care about civilian casualties.


From humanism to veganism
Once you have bought into the dogma that "all humans have moral value" (unclear what that even means) the natural step is to expand it even further to animals, there is no end to this.

Vegans have won many debates against humanism using the "name the trait" trick even though the answer was already in the question (the answer is human).

But still there isn't any good reason to care about all humans and not give considerations to animals. There are many humans who are bad for society and there are many animals that provide value (such as nice tasting meat).


Why the government cannot be too big
The bigger the government the more there will be for government official to manage. There are too many decisions to make which requires a huge bureaucracy. Even if the people highest up in the hierarchy are good, there will still be a lot of problems further down.

For example, sars-cov-2 could initially be spread because the Hubei government did not handle it properly and once the Politburo's standing committee took over, it had spread throughout the country and they were forced to take very far-reaching measures to get it under control.

From version 28 of the vintologi bible (end of page 116):

Central planning & control
It takes effort and competence to govern over something, this is true both for countries and corporations. The governance burden will grow with the size of the company/government and this is why a government has to restrict itself when it comes to control.

Governments can control companies successfully but then they will have to spend time governing these companies and that brainpower could have been used for other things. The ability of a government to control things is however not fixed, technology such as computers will give a government entity more computational power allowing them to take on a bigger burden when it comes to governance.

Making the government bigger create the need to introduce more decision making entities, this can be local governments or specialized boards and the central government will not have time to properly watch over these entities, thus as the government grow there will become an increased number of critical decision making entities that all have to maintain a high decision making reliability.

Since corporations are also limited when in their ability to govern they might not actually be able to take over society completely since the difficulty in managing a company grow with its size, there have been successful cases of companies relying a lot on central planning 277 but these companies are still small relative to the entire economy.


About anarcho-promitivism
Of course a lot of claims made by Ted Kaczynski are correct.


For example thanks to technology it's now very easy to share nudes/pornography against the will of the people in said videos and due to internet it's near impossible to stop that spread. If you send a nude and regret it there will not be any way for you to undo that. Today even young teens have access to phones and they can easily take pictures or film themselves, that can actually land them in legal trouble in addition to the fact that they might regret that later in life.

For better or worse however societies will be pushed to progress farther with technology to get an advantage. A primitive society is very easy to invade.

Even if the entire world is primitive that will not last forever since there would be evolutionary pressure gradually increasing the intelligence of humans, that is why we ended up where we are today in the first place.

While the primitive period may have been better in many ways not that many people were alive back. Even if it would be fun you would not be likely to be alive at that time-period anyway.

We do not actually have that much time left to leave earth behind. The sun is gradually getting hotter which may kill all life on earth long before the sun becomes a red giant. If we cannot conolize other planets then we are all doomed and all of our struggle for progress would have been largely for nothing.