When opinion devoid of evidence and reason are used to shape public policy in the place of critical thinking and fact based reasoning it paves the way for a series of abuses that serves to the detriment of us all.
Many people contend that their political beliefs are based on their opinions, their views on the world based on arbitrary constructs and limited perspectives that form the basis of their understanding of the world around them.
Not only is this not how politics is meant to operate, it is fundamentally flawed.
The nature of contemporary politics, the idea people participate in their systems of government either through direct action or electoral representation to enable policies seemingly meant to enhance the betterment and well-being of their community is not one that can operate on such a structure.
It goes without saying this is obviously not how politics and government actually work realistically. There are no democratic decisions, there is no fair and just representation from elected officials. The United States operates as an oligarchy, where the rich and powerful run the show and government institutions act as a crime syndicate rife with racketeering, embezzlement, graft, and the like.
But say for a moment that mainstream electoral politics operates the way that it is hypothesized to, as millions of Americans surely believe. It is a system of societal organization that should be based not on conjecture, hyperbole, and subjective concepts, but out of genuine informed consent wherein a knowledgeable populace utilize their best understanding of facts to make the decisions that shape the policies which will have the best possible outcome for everyone.
This is not a place for opinion. It is one where empirical reasoning must take precedence.
Opinions are a dime a dozen, subjective perspectives ranging from the benign to the downright deplorable with the current belief among many being that one must respect everyone's opinion even if they are particularly vile. Others hold their opinions as sacrosanct, believing that their opinions although not formed on a basis of evidence are an immutable truth.
These kind of ideas when exercised in the political arena pave the way for any number of abuses.
A prime example of this phenomenon can be found on the Evangelical right, wherein their religious mythology — devoid of historical evidence yet still rife with cognitive dissonance holding it as irrefutable fact — is the primary basis for the advocacy of numerous authoritarian policies, from the restriction of civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community, opposition to the First Amendment freedoms of other religious groups, to their support for Zionist war crimes.
No matter how hard one clings to their religion, those of sound logic and reason recognize that no mythology represents irrefutable fact. There is no empirical, replicatable evidence for the existence of any God or Gods, thus relegating one's spiritual beliefs to that of a personal subjective experience. Therefore, public policy has no business being based on such beliefs.
A clear example of this are the arguments made by the evangelical right against marriage equality, citing the biblical book of Leviticus as justification for their denial of basic fundamental liberties. Notwithstanding the fact that the United states is not a Christian nation, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in the slightest. When translated into its original language of Hebrew and placed in the correct cultural context, it is irrefutably clear that such verses are referencing pedophilia and idolatry, not homosexuality.
No matter what one's feelings are on the morality of same sex relations those opinions are irrelevant to the facts that public policy is not determined by theocratic rule, nor does such biblical doctrine condemn said acts in the first place.
With the rise of political polarisation many have sought to hide behind the notion that "we can disagree and still be friends" even when it regards heinous viewpoints. And while there absolutely should be more efforts to bridge political divides and foster unity, the retort that "we can have differing opinions but not when it comes to human rights" is still very much applicable.
When one's "opinion", devoid of any facts, is used to justify the abuse of an entire group of people it ceases to be tolerable.
Another, much more concise example, can be found from examining the decades-long war on drugs.
A rational fact-based approach to this issue reveals the many fallacies of current policy.
It is a fact that the United States has a long standing history of covertly supporting cartels and drug traffickers, facilitating the shipments of drugs into the country.
It is a fact that the war on drugs was admitted by those that orchestrated it to be a scapegoat for criminalizing antiwar efforts and the black liberation movement.
It is a fact that the most successful drug policies have been shown to be those that incorporate policies of decriminalization with increased resources put towards treatment, health care, and economic stability.
One's opinions on the matter, whether they like or dislike illicit substances, or whether or not they agree with what other adults voluntarily put into their own bodies doesn't matter in the slightest when it comes to what should be an objective fact based policy.
And of course this opens the floodgates to the most insidious opinion of all, one that has wrought more destruction and authoritarianism than perhaps any other — the illusion of authority.
People are led to believe, through any means of cultural conditioning and social engineering, that some groups are entitled to rule over others. It is their belief that these arbitrary dictates must be obeyed no matter what.
And yet this is still just another baseless opinion without the backing of any facts or evidence. There is precisely zero logical reasoning behind the concept that some humans have the right to rule others, it is indeed a fact that there is no evidence based backing to support the blind allegiance to individuals or institutions that claim the right to dominate lives of others.
Every individual has their own inalienable autonomy. Self ownership and personal sovereignty is an inherent aspect of our human nature. This does not simply vanish just because one group of people claims they have the right to control others.
No one truly gave any informed consent to these systems, and yet it is our supposed need to give consent to the systems, fraught with their fictitious, illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary dictates most of which have no evidentiary basis that paves the way for abuses of civil rights, violations of human rights, the theft of wages, the enactment of policies that put innocent people in cages, and result in the deaths of millions both at home and abroad either at the hands of a militarized police state or an imperialist war machine.
Having opinions are fine, but one must be able to differentiate between what is truly an opinion of subjective interpretation and a belief arrived at by logical discernment and fact based reasoning. The former has no business influencing the latter, rather one's opinions should be based upon the facts as they know them and one should constantly seek to improve their understanding of the world around them.
It is often said there is no such thing as too much knowledge; a person should always seek to learn as much information as they possibly can, to challenge their own ideas, and be willing to change their minds when presented with new evidence. For if a belief is true then no amount of scrutiny can discredit it, and if a belief is untrue one should be willing to seek the truth no matter where it leads.