This actually seems like a problem. Do you have no preference on policies, do you not think that any change in government will have an effect on the world, or is it something else?
My opinions are too abstract. If I tried to apply them to derive concrete policy proposals the is-ought problem is returned.
I have opinions about the role the relative costs of attack and defense have played in civilization. I have opinions about how financial innovation has affected war. I have opinions about contract law. I have opinions about demographic transitions. Do these opinions make me a democrat or republican? Um.
As for politics affecting my life? My life is affected by the possibility of natural disaster, but I don't get angry at earth...
I've long opposed discussing politics on Less Wrong. Elsewhere, however, I have been known to gaze into the abyss; and so it came to be that I wrote a handful of blog posts of the Oxford Libertarian Society Blog. I had the deliberate intention of bring a little bit of rationality into politics - and so of course ended up writing in something like Eliezer's style.
I wanted to establish some theory first, so the initial posts were about The Conservation of Expected Evidence and Reductionism, and then one particular Death-Spiral.
As you'll probably notice, one of my defences against the little-death has been to err on the side of attacking Libertarian positions; I provided an account of Traditional Socialist Values so we remember that our enemies aren't inherently evil, and then analysed an abuse of The Law of Comparative Advantage, showing cases where it didn't apply.
I can't promise I'll update at all regularly.
Post inspired by Will Newsome and prompted by Vladimir Nesov.
http://oxlib.blogspot.com/