two for two

^ZOMG CONSECUTIVE NEW POSTS.

After writing about my crappy paper, I caught up on several days of work, and it actually looks much better. Go figure.

I've been thinking a bit about politics lately. Mostly how much I hate it, but also where I stand on it all. The problem with my stances on anything is that they're always changing. When I first applied to work as an election inspector, I had to give them a party affiliation, because legally, in the state of Michigan, election inspector "boards" (those five people sitting around) have to have members representing at least two different parties. The reason for that is not corruption, as a friend of mine was quick to say, but because of voting laws. If a voter needed help marking the ballot, we have to have two people from differing parties help them, so as to avoid "voter bias." Same with ballot tabulation. A couple of people from two different parties check all the odd ballots and double check each others' work. Back then, I wrote "Libertarian," but I've seen the little sheet election chairmen get, and I'm listed as nothing. Not even "independent". My box was blank. Do I have to pay a party money to be officially recognized??

I used to think I was Libertarian, and that it was full of good ideas. I still kind of think they're good ideas, but only in an ideal situation. This US history class I took back in May showed me the real strength of a decentralized government. Care for a non-binding resolution, sir? The biggest thing I realized in that class wasn't about politics, though, it was that old adage about history repeating itself being true. The "largest, most advanced military force in the world being unable to truly defeat a guerrilla force" thing has happened far more often than I ever knew. But the topic of States Rights and decentralized government has happened twice to our own country, and failed both times. Yeah yeah, Civil War, blah blah. But I found out that America was FOUNDED on States' Rights! And also that it was really shitty, so they ditched the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, which set up a stronger, federal government. The states themselves were insular and uncooperative, which isn't to say they aren't anymore, but the federal government has the power to manage them now. The way I'm painting it sounds like I'm defining Libertarianism very narrowly, just speaking about "less central government," but there are deeper statements rooted in the philosophy that I cannot agree with, mainly the idea that individual people know what's best for them. I'd love to say it was true, but I've met people, and I know it's hopelessly wrong. Same with anarcho-communism. People, on a large scale, are just not good enough to do what they need to do.

So I wasn't anti-government, and I wasn't conservative, and I wasn't even as moderate as I thought. Hey, why not go and read about socialism? At the very least, I'd actually know what I was talking about, unlike the people who call Obama a communist. Seriously, if those people had thought to ask the socialists or the communists about Obama's actions, they would be in for some disappointment. Anyway. I stumbled across this idea that blew my mind-- "dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles." Woah, dude. Woah. It's this bit of socialist philosophy from a guy called Leon Trotsky, whose particular "communist" stylings were quite the opposite of Stalin's. I also found out communism, as Marx wrote, is an endgame situation devoid of a government, so I guess any so-called communist regimes really aren't communists at all. Socialism is sort of the interim between capitalist society and communism, a government paving the way for a stateless society. Personally, I think a world without money and possession would be great, but again, the idea "works" because it's untested and hypothetical. I don't really feel that I'm a Socialist either, because supporting the midway point seems fruitless, although the membership card would be a great conversation piece.

I've been asked "Why do you need labels?" and the answer is "BECAUSE I LIKE THEM." They make things simple. But in recent months, I've been watching myself grab at every idea like I was the first person to think it, and trying to fit into some role. I have an intense need for symbols and ritual and ideas, and I keep falling into new ones saying "This, this is it! I know everything I need to know because of THIS!" It's hard not to do, but I am aware of it, even if it is a bit after the fact.

I've done this with the rantings about tattoos, too. I had three new tattoo ideas today which were way better than head tattoos... But each was better than the one before it. Because of this, I'm not getting any tattoos now. I can't keep one idea I like for even a month, so all bets are off. Gonna have to remind myself not to get caught in a hasty mood...

Busy day tomorrow, rawr.

Sean