rnd's website logomy political positions

On some issues, I hold very strong positions, while on others, I'm open to a lot of options.

  • the economy: the end goal is to have everyone's basic needs met in a way that doesn't hurt future generations. As long as that's met, the details don't really matter?

  • civil rights: ethnic, religious, sexual/gender minorities, disabled people etc. should have the same rights as the rest of society. Discrimination against these groups can not be tolerated. If a minority group ends up getting less opportunities because of historic economic factors or discrimination, this should be rectified. (Of course, groups such as white supremacists who claim they're being discriminated against because of "white genocide" or religious fundamentalists who think enforcing their worldview on others is their right are not included in this category and do not deserve protection.)

  • church and state: should be separated. In addition to that, existing laws that aren't explicitly religion-based should be looked at in an effort to make them more neutral (e.g. if there are official holidays based on the Christmas season or Easter, these should ideally be made more flexible so that people who follow other religions, or no religion, are free to pick other days). People should be free to practice their religion, as long as it doesn't hurt the rights and freedoms of other people.

  • labor unions: are good and should be protected, except for jobs that involve intentionally causing harm to other people (e.g. law enforcement, prison guards, etc.)

  • police: both "abolish the police" and "defund the police" are valid options. The former would probably involve a vast reshaping of the common conceptions of property and crime, to an extent where I don't understand the details, but it seems like in many places it would do more good than bad. In the latter case, the role of policing should be reduced. Ideally, police and prisons would only be used against violent crimes as a last resort, in case nonviolent resolution fails to achieve its goals.

  • drugs: I don't know what the exact best policy for narcotics would be, but it would probably involve decriminalization of possession, legal production of drugs in a way where their quality is verified, and letting people who have addictions lose them without ruining their lives?

  • free speech: people should be free to say what they want without fear of legal repercussions, except for threats to other people's lives, harassment, statements intended to cause harm against a person or a group of people, etc. However, individual communities and organizations should be free to moderate and/or restrict speech as they want. It could possibly be a good idea to make it so that people who have access to large platforms and have a lot of supporters/followers are made more responsible for statements that might cause "stochastic terrorism" acts.

  • LGBT rights: marriage and other similar rights should not be restricted by sex or gender. A person should be free to declare their gender identity and be provided medical and social aid in order to have that identity affirmed. Personal identity documents (passports, driver's licenses, etc.) should ideally not have a "gender" field at all, but offering alternative options like "X" in addition to "M" or "F" is also good.

  • gender and sexuality: people should be free to define themselves as they want to. (more specifially, bi/pan and nonbinary lesbians are perfectly good terms.) all consensual, non-abusive relationships between adults are okay.

  • intellectual property: was created for a good reason, but its restrictions have since grown to an extent that hurts creativity and reinforces existing inequalities. Copyright's restrictions should be limited to 15 years since publication, with a single possible renewal to another 15 years depending on whether the work is still being released and used. Patents should be limited to between 5 and 15 years, depending on the industry (e.g. software patents should be limited to 5 years, given the pace of innovation in that field).

  • citizenship: should be granted to anyone if they're born on the country's territory, or have lived there for over 5 years. should not be revocable.

  • ideal form of government: a democracy with citizenship and voting rights strongly protected and a voting system which represents its citizens fairly and avoids the "spoiler effect" when picking singular leaders. Decentralized governance, with only the most basic economic and civil-rights/anti-discrimination restrictions being imposed on a federal level, is probably the best. I'm also open to anarchist societies, though I have a lot of questions about how one would even work in the 21st century.

  • ideal size of nations: not larger than 100 million people, with sizes between 10 and 50 million being the best.

  • activism: peaceful is best, but it's also clear that sometimes, large populations' valid demands are simply ignored or dismissed. In that case, property damage, vandalism and other kinds of violent activity can be justifiable, depending on the situation and the level of opposition from the government. (specifically, I consider BLM protests in the U.S., Hong Kong democracy protests and the Euromaidan in Ukraine to all be justified.) While "looting" is, in a moral vacuum, a negative idea, it's more justifiable if the society otherwise refuses to even pay attention to the protesters' demands, or if said society's inequality is built on a history of treating some people and their property as sacred and others' as free to be taken.

  • Crimea: is Ukraine. Or, alternatively, should be an independent state run by Crimean Tatars.

Back to main politics page

Hosted by Neocities Follow me on Mastodon This page made with Vim SimpleJPC-16 Best viewed in Firefox Alpine Linux The Dreamcast Junkyard Dreamcast Live Blaseball F-Droid jan li lukin e lipu ni lon tenpo mute Jet Set Radio Live Trans Rights Now!
Website created and updated by /dev/urandom. Source code available on the GitLab page.