-isms don't work

...for normal people.
Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, and all the others.  They're all pretty much fine in the hands of intelligent, rational people.  But the problem is the masses screw everything up.  My question to you poli-tards is, would it be possible to lie to the average man and trick him into believing one thing, while secretly accomplishing the goals of one of the 'isms'?

yes, every heard of organized religion?

Depends.  Does the country have freedom of religion?  Is the religion particularly demanding?  Are the people kept relatively ignorant of the world?  Is the religion twisted to meet these goals, or would we use unadulterated (lol) religions?

Also, communism is fundamentally a lie.
Socialism is the realistic communism.
Open Market Capitalism is really the only economy that cannot be fucked up.
However, when a 'mixed' economy (such as the US) takes root, the Capitalists will bitch that there is too much Government involvement, the socialists will bitch that they are doing too much work, and the hippies will still be getting high.

Now, can you use Democracy to fuck with people?  Absolutely, especially if information concerning key issues is filtered.  Which is why Representatives are party affiliated.  So that they can filter information to the people who think they have a voice, then use that 'poll' to make their decisions.

The best Government is that which is almost non-existent.  It should exist to raise a defensive militia in times of war (which is not even neccesary, as most of the populace would be armed anyways) and to have a seat in International Affairs.

The United Individuals of America, if you will.

>>1
Capitalism works, to bad we always muck it up with socialism and utilitarianism

lol utilitarianism. do you know what the word means? it means the ethical theory where overall happiness is the only measurement for moral actions. and this is normally practiced by most people as a sort of "common sense" morality. of course it is flawed but for most everyday things, the majority of people are utilitarians by nature.

>>4
yeah, too bad we have to "care" about how the other 99 are doing ...

>>5 99%*

>>5
Most people in the western world know what utilitarianism is, but thanks for the incomplete lesson, im sure Mill is proud of you. You have quite a grasp on the topic, I mean you explained it so clearly im sure you will be able to spot the massive chunk of information you’re missing, the part that deals with why capitalism and utilitarianism cannot co-exist. Here ill do it for you.


The ethical theory where overall happiness *of a population* is the only measurement for moral actions

Yea utilitarianism is a great practice for government; Germany had a right to kill Jews, really. Me and my neighbor hated that nigger, we had a right to kill him, it made us happy. Unlimited majority rule is so great guys I love this

Wait... killing that nigger was wrong?  Oh shit.. I think we are in trouble man... I mean... the internet etc.


lol

>>7

You missed that point that NORMAL PEOPLE WITHIN ANY SOCIETY WILL NORMALLY DO WHAT WHATEVER ACTION WILL BRING THE GREATEST HAPPINESS TO THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE. I never talked about how governments act, asshole. I talked about how people in general act. You know, the people the OP talked about. Like what this topic is about. Where the fuck is your reading comprehension?

>>1
No. Because you cannot be trusted either. Everything must be discussed on an open forum, exposed to criticism and no one must be denied the right to the freedom of speech.

Any "ism" who's elite thinks differently is most likely a fraud.

>>9
You don't need to respond to people who use profanity.

well, utilitarianism is sweet and is generally a part of our thought-process when deciding things, but it'd be a bitch to use it as an actual form of government since you can't keep track of the "costs" of everything, maybe in a hive-mind society it would be do-able, but it's simply too complex normally, so we draw, utilitaristically, imperfect situations ALL the time.
"yes, kill the jews because i don't like them" then we have to consider what the costs will be for the jews compared to what the benefit will be to you, what about the other neighbours? the jews' family, will they get depressed`? if they get depressed, then that's another cost we'll have to include, and that's hard enough seeing as it's a sort of intrinsic or tacit value. what about the people around them? if the kids of the jews' neighbours get sad because they lost their best friends (the jews' kids), will they then do worse in school? them doing worse in school would result in them getting radically less out of the future (according to numbers anyways). etc. etc. etc. you can keep on going link by link by link untill it gets too hard.

well, the 'isms are generally theories explaining different parts of human behaviour and then reacting on it. But they all fail to come up with THE human behaviour, which is sort of obvious since we're not all alike and behaviour is a complex thing and people still argue how it's even composed.
Because of this inadeuacy they all come up with a branch of human behaviour and a branch of governemntal build-up which would fit the best for that branch of human behaviour, and because it's a branch it does, of course, not fit the entire tree.
But it is possible to trick people into believing one thing then doing another, mainly because the names of differnet 'isms get changed from time to time, or take on different meanings or konnotations. being a national socialist may not be that bad, but after the nazi party, it definately became bad, that doesn't mean you can't have a nationalsocialist policy though, and then call it something else. Also politicians change, take a little of this 'ism, add a little of that 'ism, thus never reaching one 'ism in it's totality(branch, tree, etc. Î), but you can definately lean very much towards one 'ism than others, while at the same time people aren't considering they're being in this or that 'ism.

>>12
Don't forget the jews who are actually being killed and having the rest of their lives robbed from them.

>>12
Also don't forget some systems pave the way for people like the nazis or the stalinists. If a population is embued with the spirit of liberty, some assholes will get into the government, but it is unlikely anyone totalitarian dictators will take over and reduce the liberty of the average person to extremely low levels. If a population is embued with the spirit of national socialism or socialism it is easy for dictators to fool people into supporting a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

I'd take "LIBERTY OR DEATH" over marxist dogma anyday.

>>14
 pft, people can come up with all sorts of shitty reasons ot justify their dictatorships, be it making people free (whether they want it or not) or making people be someting else (whether they want it or not).

i mean look at chile which took the opposite turn of socialism, still they managed to kill thousands of people in the name of freeing the country etc.

>>15
For a dictator and his thugs, supporting marxist derived ideologies is fine, he can just say "We must put human rights aside for the time being in favour of equality".

However it is philosophically impossible for a dictator to be libertarian, it would be like saying "We must put human rights aside for the time being in favour of warring with people who do not support human rights.". Essentially instructing his own followers to kill him.

Your argument doesn't stand.

Pinochet was a major military figure who clearly wanted to become military dictator so him and his thugs could live in opulent splendour, he didn't touch libertarianism with a barge pole since a major component of it revolves around demonising tyrants and warring with those who do not uphold human rights. If Pinochet was a libertarian, he certainly made no attempt to enact libertarian principles or indoctrinate people in libertarian ideology which could be compared to Stalin's vast propoganda campaign and attempt to enact communist principles through collectivised farms etc..

>>16
Hardly you fucking twit, Pinochet was supported by the US, overthrowing a democratically elected leader (allende), in the name of capitalism (which is why the US supported him).  IN FACT, the overthrow of Allende was an experiment of a Libertarian Think Tank which pretty much instructed the CIA that it would be rosy and beautiful, after of course all the violence of the military coup.

Pinochet was "libertarian" which was why we supported him over a communist, he just, like all other people who gain power, realized that your principles can be ignored or discarded once you have unquestionable authority.

Maybe the US is just a bad judge of character.

>>17
So can we have that in writing?

You believe that General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, president of Chile through a military coupe from the 16th of December 1974 to the 11th of March 1990, was a person who advocated freedom from despotic rule, freedom of speech and human rights universally through the population of Chile.

Would this be correct?

>>18 He said he was libertarian, and that was apparently enough. Libertarian think-tanks believe that as long as capitalism is healthy - everything else will be. Yeah, it sure has shortened the income gap between male and female college grads in the US! Except, it hasn't.

>>19
Well he certainly didn't implement any libertarian values, whereas other tyrants who use ideologies tend to have no problem implementing their values.

Compare Pinochet's coup with the American Revolutionary War for an example on the differences between how vehement the military leaders and their supporters follow libertarian philosophy and the effects. Clearly indoctrinating armed groups to be libertarian works, slowly, but it gets there. Indoctrinating armed groups to be marxists obviously does not work.

That covers the entire argument. Pinochet oultawed democracy and wasn't a libertarian, he just very lightly claimed to be one, but since he actually made an effort to be seen as a military dictator he was not a libertarian in any sense of the word.

>>20
If i understand correctly, in the american rev war military leaders folowed libertarian princples while pinochet did not, and therefor the former is good while the latter is bad? Slavery is acceptable in libertarianism now, as long as it is democratic?

The greatest military success in the world were made by troops indoctrinated by marxism, namely the red armys victory over nazi germany. Or that doesnt count?

>>20
So, the Russian Civil War didn't happen, because Trotsky couldn't get any of the old Imperial Russian generals into the Red Army?
You want to tell me that they weren't marxists when they fight for the marxist cause?

You fail at history good sir.

No, you haven't covered the entire argument, the arguement is that Pinochet got United States support to overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader with marxist leanings.  Libertarian think tanks SUPPORTED an illegitimate leader, which by definition would end up being tyrannical.  If he didn't win the election, he's not your leader, he's a tyrant.

>>18
Yeah, the US is a bad judge of character.  The Shah, the Nicaraguan Contras, the Taliban, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, did I get them all?

>>21
You are correct in saying that libertarianism isn't 100% perfect and does not see perfect results in 0 seconds. The thing is libertarianism is the only set of philosophies that actually allow results to occur. Slavery, colonialism and imperialism and all those things which ended upwards of 50 years ago that liberals enjoy whining about would have never ended if it were not for libertarianism within the european powers and those americans who supported the unionists in the civil war.

>>22
I fail to see how you believe I am claiming that the russian revolution didn't occur. I also fail to see why you think I support Pinochet. Lastly I fail to see why you find it so difficult to admit that you believe Pinochet was a libertarian, since it is the core of your argument.

Do you believe that General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, president of Chile through a military coupe from the 16th of December 1974 to the 11th of March 1990, was a person who advocated freedom from despotic rule, freedom of speech and human rights universally through the population of Chile? Yes or no?

>>23
Democracy isn't perfect, but you can bitch about it's mistakes and imperfections all you want without being executed.

Islamism is bullshit

　　　　　　　　　　　▂▃▅▅▅▃▂ 　 　　▲◢◤▀◥◣▃　▍◢◤
　　　　　　 ▂▅▓▓▅██████▇▅◢██▀　　 〓 ★ 〓
　 　 　　◢▓▓▅███■▀████▓▓█◤　　　　◢◤　▍◥◣
　　　 ◢▓▓▆███▀▐ ▊▀▓▀█▓　　▓▲
　　 ◢▓▓▆██▀ ▼▍▍▲▌▐▓◥█▓▓██◣
　▃ ▓▆███▓ ▍▎▌▍▍▼▍▌▓ █████▅
▐█▓█████▃▼▌▐ ▐ ▌▍▼ ◢█████▓█◣
█▊■██████◣▓ ▌▍▲◥◤ ▅██████▓█▊
◥■ ████████▅▼▀▃▆███████▓▓▼
◢█▲▓████████▆█▀▓▓▓█■▀▓▓▓█▅
███▓▓▀██■▀　　　　▀■▓▓█▓▓▓▓███
▐██◣▓▓■▀　 　▍▎　　 　 ▀■▓▓▓▓█■▀
　　▀■◢▅▂▅▃　▐ ▍ ▃▅▂▃▅　▼◢▓██◤
　　　　▌　▀█■▆▓▓▇■█■▀　 ▲█▀
　　　　▲▀▓◣▀ ◢▍ ▐◣▀ ◢〓◤　◢■▀
　 　 ◢▓█◣　◥〓▌　▐◥〓◤　　▃▓◢▉
　　▐▓█▓◣　　◢▍　 ▂◣　　 ◢▓███▋
　　 ███▓▓ ▐◣▃▅█▅　　▃▓████
　　 ▼██▆▇█▅ ▀██▅▓▓▓████
　　　▀███■▀　　　◥▌▀■▇█■▀
　　　 ███▀▓▓〓▃〓▓▓▀■▀
　　　　▀■▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓〓▀
　　　　 　 　▀■▓▓〓▀

Stupid sand niggers

>>24
Horseshit, the people who ended slavery may have had your opinions of liberty and freedom, but they didn't necessarily want your economic policies.  I hardly think the Abolitionist movement was "libertarian" in their economic stance, since they wanted to deprive people of their property.

>>24
Are you defending the regimes that >>23
is listing with "democracy isn't perfect"? Wow, talk about morally bankrupt.

>>26
wut

>>28
he's saying slaves were property and he abolitionists wanted to take them away from slave owners, thus they cannot be libertarians.

>>26

I think, priority-wise, the right to letting a sentient creature have control of his own destiny >>> right to property, for anyone with a shred of common sense.

>>29
He can't be, that's too silly.