for now is that your identification with your survival needs (money/self interest) is what is pulling you into this "i don't give a fuck" attitude. you seem like "if no party helps me out financially, they have not deserved my support".
I think you've misunderstood me. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I don't lean one way or the other in terms of what's on offer. I'm between a rock and a hard place. I deeply wish to see my political goals realized, it's just that voting for one side means voting against half of what I care about, regardless of the side. It's not even that I want financial handouts and would actually be in opposition to a candidate who supported them with a few somewhat unpopular exceptions (e.g., universal income/negative income tax). It's just that the financial issues are equally as important to me as the social issues. I tend to disagree with the left financially and the right socially, though this is very general and not the case in every situation. Neither financial or social issues are more important to me.
Your political desires are so far removed from this state, that you are unwilling to participate in the two party system at all.
I think this is a misrepresentation of my position. My participation exists, it's just not in votes. I can advocate for/against specific pieces of legislation to steer my political participation in a direction that an all-or-nothing vote for a single candidate would not allow for. Again, for me, a vote is essentially a half-truth. Typically, at most, I'd agree with one side about half of the things and the other with the other half, and neither half is more important to me. There's no reason for me to cast my vote because regardless of who wins I'm going to be equally dissatisfied. Through advocating for/against specific legislation and speaking out about specific issues, I can make my voice actually heard rather than half of my vote vote canceling the other half out.
I intuit that your view of evolution must be selective, in the sense that you want a world/future that structurally supports only your current favorite stage of evolution (which is what you consider your views to be compatible with) and abandons the previous stages or their right to co-create the world or the structures that allow individuals from these stages to exert power.
I would argue that the reverse is true. My political ideals are as minimal as possible specifically because of evolution. We're not in a state of arrested development, and those deviating from the usual are to be expected. I think politics should not seek to solve problems by focusing on the most common cases, but rather approach issues in ways that can apply globally, even to the deviant among us (taking into account human/civil rights).
This would include things like not just making murder a crime that can
only be committed by men because they are most commonly the perpetrators of it. Women who deviate from this will exist and should not be treated less severely than men who commit the same crime. It would also include sexuality and reproduction. Heterosexuality is normal (most common), but we shouldn't incentivize or disincentivize it with law that discriminates/advantages those who deviate from it, same with having children.
Variation is what evolution is all about, and I think the most appropriate approach is largely a hands-off one.
When it comes to conflict resolution, it's all about the letter of the law to me, which is why I think there needs to be a
very good reason for a law to exist in the first place. When there is a good enough reason to justify a law, it should be as simple as possible, as unambiguous as possible, and as non-discriminatory/preferential as possible. It's a fine line to walk, but it can be done. I think the bill of rights did it very well.
Economic success is definitely a factor in reproductive success (though not the most critical one by any means), and thus also directly related to evolution. It tends to be more of a factor in the somewhat ensured success of the progeny.
Ultimately, what I want, is the most
fair and
stable system. I think the existence and protection of some fundamental rights are an essential part of this.
Don't get me wrong, this system is rarely, if ever, ideal for any
one individual. A person who's born with no eyes in the system is going to be disadvantaged in a system that doesn't grant them preferential treatment to people with 1+ eyes. Sure, that sucks for them and they'll probably have to rely on the charity of others, but evolution depends on the disparity of outcomes to avoid poisoning the well. The situation could always be better for some by preferring a trait of them over a trait of everyone else, but these traits should be naturally selected based on their own merit.
Obviously this probably sounds a lot like Social Darwinism (depending on how you define it), which it sort of is and sort of isn't. The existence and protection of individual rights and hands-off approach tempers this a bit. It's important to note that those with high levels of economic success are by no means out-breeding those with low economic success (though, as mentioned above, the progeny of those with economic success are typically better off and thus potentially more likely to be reproductively successful themselves). There are many factors involved. It's also worth noting that given relative economic success on average, humans seem to be too empathetic to really let each other just die. Non-government-funded charities exist and keep plenty of people alive. Would they fill the void in the absence of government programs? It's hard to say. Regardless, evolution takes a long time, so no one's really going to notice traits being selected for/against, which seems to be a common fear of Social Darwinism.
All of this is to say, I think the best approach is to do as little as possible while still retaining stability. At best only half my views seem represented, pulling for more freedom on one side and less on the other, when I think there needs to be more freedom on both sides. I don't see the civilization as distinct from individuals when basic rights are included in the package. I didn't even touch on social roles and evolutionary psychology, but that's included in all of this too.
I would go on, but I think I've rambled long enough and probably got quite off topic.
