<p>This has been a question that has been on my mind for a long time…</p>
<p>Okay, first of all, I’m definitely not Democratic or Republican. I generally dislike most federal institutions, although I feel that some of them are necessary (EPA and some regulatory agencies - the FDA for example). The problem with federal guidelines is that we don’t know what level of pollution is “optimal”, or the limits at which decreasing emissions would come with increasingly decreasing returns. I also feel that the free market is perhaps the market that is best suited for the production of new ideas. </p>
<p>However, I am somewhat torn about whether I’m more in favor of private property or communal property. I realize that most people are best innovators when they feel as if they could own their products (at least for some time). Yet on the other hand, I also feel that the Internet allows production to come without the existence of private property. But this only exists with respect to widely-used software. I don’t know if this model would apply to academia. </p>
<p>One thing that has been on my core belief system for a long time: I’m all for free access of knowledge that can be easily acquired - that cannot be owned. I hate public education more than anything else, for one thing. I also hate the university “lecture” system, which I feel discourages self-motivation and self-study. I also hate it when people restrict information to a particular class - I hate it when people are “entitled” to a discussion based on the mere fact that they are enrolled in an university. I wish that all information would be publicized - at least in the age of the Internet - where people can self-identify with the means of production that would suit them best. </p>
<p>All I know is that I’m sympathetic to some decentralized system since I feel that people can self-identify themselves according to their beliefs and their needs better than any governmental system can. I’m still unsure about my view on copyright, since I realize that copyright laws do provide incentives to produce, especially with respect to goods that people are unlikely to appreciate. For the record, libertarians are most likely to believe that they have the complete freedom to deny anyone access to their products or discussions - but as far as free market thinking goes, those who deny products to all lose out. Yet, what of discussions that exclude people from participating? Is regulation needed to prevent such discussions from being private?</p>
<p>One could say that the government helps enforce anti-discrimination laws. This is an interesting problem in itself - since most producers are best off not discriminating against anyone - PROVIDED THAT they earn something while they are producing. Yet, the very nature of production by the person himself- that is antithetical to the nature of anarcho-communism. I don’t really believe that anarcho-communism would be realistic. Yet on the other hand, anti-discrimination laws may be necessary when producers DON’T produce a profit off what they do - rather - when, say, they socialize in an Internet forum and may choose to discriminate against those who are, say, not enrolled in the course.</p>
<p>For the record, I do have a number of facebook friends who have similar views as me, and their political views are all set to “other”. I’m confused. I’m debating over setting my facebook political views, between “very liberal” and “libertarian” or merely “other”. That said, “very liberal” has connotations to the modern day Democratic party, which I definitely do not want to associate myself with. Yet I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, nor am I a fan of most libertarian movements. hm.</p>