What do you consider yourself to be?
Please use the most specific term you can.
Also, what party do you usually vote for? (please list country)
Please, don't start arguments about ideologies, just answer the questions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 15:37
I'm best described as a libertarian theocrat. People should be able to do whatever they damn well please as long as God doesn't say otherwise.
I usually vote for the Canadian Green party.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 16:06
I'm Belgian and I'm a Japanese nationalist.
Sadly there are no Belgian-Japanese politicians currently, but if there ever is one, he'll get my vote, no matter what his ideology is.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 16:07
I've always had a soft spot for Mussolini's brand of fascism but at heart I have to admit I am more of a hardcore maoist.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 20:37
I usually find myself having trouble deciding between Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism.
I usually vote for the Socialist Party USA, but last year I ended up voting for the Green Party because I liked the candidate better.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-04 23:19
I would say Totalitarianism if i had an incorruptible government. The average person is just too stupid to decide what is best for a nation. When there is such a close competition between 2 faces of the same coin in an election, you know there is a problem with democracy. 1 unquestioned political party that is truly working for the good of the people would be perfect. Leaders would be selected based on their capability rather than how good a spin doctor they are, or because it's in the interest of certain businessmen to have a certain person in power.
Sadly this will never happen.
Name:
Alexander Pope2009-07-05 0:15
For forms of government
Let fools contest.
Whatever's best administered
Is best.
Name:
Virgil Leone2009-07-05 7:01
Original Constitutionalist. I don't vote unless the candidate is worth it. I didn't vote nationally but I voted locally. Voting based on party lines is an ignorant practice. Filling in Superman is always a good option, perhaps one day he'll get voted in.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-05 10:41
>>8
um, there are a lot of constitutions in the world.
can you be more specific?
Technocracy (a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control).
Democracy is nice in theory but there's just too many stupid people out there. They shouldn't be allowed to vote for the have no clue (see USA).
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-05 15:25
Ultra liberal
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-06 23:28
Pacifist Anarchist, don't agree with the system but I don't believe there's any need to destroy it to prove the point.
I don't vote.
Name:
Virgil Leone2009-07-06 23:29
>>9
Well I'm an American but I believe a strong constitution is the foundation of a strong country. This is of course provided it is a good constitution which can adapt through amendments. No single constitution is right for every country.
People are stupid, so we should never let any person have absolute control. Democracy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-11 0:17
Libertarian totalitarianism
Basic philosophy in this state is that you can do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't harm others and doesn't challenge the authority of the state.
There are no "victimless crimes".. drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, etc. are all legal.
No democracy; the leader is a dictator who has little right over the people as long as the government itself isn't directly threatened.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-11 23:19
I'm an Oligarchical Collectivist. Which actually has a lot in common with what the poster above me said with his Libertarian totalitarianism. There are just a few differences.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 0:55
>>17
I have to agree with you there, Emmanuel Goldstein is just a demagogue butthurt because he was kicked out of the party.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 1:14
Jesus Christ. Does some idiot have to make the connection between 1984 everytime I mention Oligarchical Collectivism? You do realize that there are a lot of variations to it and it isn't a party that is impossible to bring about right? It could actually do a hell of a lot better than the current system we have in most nations. So really, this is a board for political discussion, not George Orwell novels.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 2:03
>>19
Would you like to live in an oligarchial collectivism even if you are not part of the oligarchy?
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 3:18
Well it would not be hard to be part of the Oligarchy. People who were useful to the Party are part of the oligarchy. Pretty much any job was run by the government. So I could easily be Outer Party. Only the idiots and useless were proles. Now I would most likely never make it to Inner Party though. But unless you were literally scum you could make it into the Outer Party at least.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-15 14:44
Fuedalist
I think that humanity is better off with Lords and Ladies. They had an incentive to care for their people (who dierectly fed them) and to manage resources better. Capitalism doesn't work because it creates the law of the Jungle -- every man for himself, and screw anyone who gets in the way. Communism puts beareucrats in charge, but they don't give a fuck because they don't live anywhere NEAR where they make decisions for.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-16 4:53
>>22
But the nepots keep doing stupid shit like stifling technological progress to keep their peasants dumb so they feel good about themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-29 9:35
Ideologies are as meaningfull, as "The sweetest thing ever". You wouldn't want it all the time.
Unless you had a dynamic ideology. This is why all ideologies of the past failed. They stuck by their original thoughts and did not change with the times. So other ideologies took over. If you had an ideology that was dynamic and changed with the times it would be good, survive, and would not become stagnant and bore people. Oligarchical Collectivism and Libertarian Authoritiarianism ( which are practically the same) would survive and become great ideologies that are dynamic and would change with the times. They would not become old and stagnate like others in the past.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 3:01
>>25
What if the oligarchial collectivists decide to become stalinists?
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 6:34
I consider myself to be a Liberal. I think everyone should be entitled to their choices and should live their lives by their OWN CHOICES AND ACTIONS, rather than going by the book/pro-life style. I think the government should be leaving the people's social life alone and should be working towards bettering the economy and using the money to help its citizens.
I do not, however, believe in bailouts. I think they're pretty terrible.
Because Stalinism has nothing to do with Oligarchical Collectivism. Stalinism is a failed ideology that should not be emulated because it will only lead to further failure. Just like Nazism or any form of WN is a failed and inferior ideology.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 15:22
>>28
That's not going to stop them from turning the system into a Stalinism if it suits them. You haven't thought this through, or even looked at history for that matter.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 17:40
I'm basically a skeptic. All answers are wrong. We're fucked. Best to just get along with the folks where you live. What they think, I should pretend to think. Makes life easier and me more popular.
That is a contradiction of terms. If you are a skeptic then you consider all options as possible. You do not assume that all answers are false because they could very well be correct. A skeptic has no strong opinions on things. They think about things and consider each and every option. You are contradicting yourself. Learn more about skepticism and political theory before you make such corrupted logic.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 18:00
>>33
There's a difference between Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonian Skepticism. Lrn2philosophy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 18:03
>>33
>also thinks a single sentence, written conversationally=logic
God, your post is just so wrong on so many levels. You don't know what skeptic means, you don't know what logic means, you're a damn mess, son.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-30 19:20
You guys are idiots. You are skeptics because it is "radical" and "edgy". You have no idea what skepticism is. Academic Skepticism is a crock of shit. Pyrrhonian Skepticism is the only type of skepticism that makes any sense. They consider all and everything possible. Not you pseudo-intellectual fucks with your intellectual circlejerk.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-02 11:29
>>33 >>34 >>35 >>36
Wow, is it still 1855? Haven't any of you ignorant uneducated niggers heard of Wittgenstein? Modern analytic philosophy reveals that pyrrhonism's logical justification requires the acceptance of academic skepticism since one must first realise that nothing is absolutely certain in order to deduce that due to the limitations of the mind we must assume some things are certain in order to function thereby leading to pyrrhonic skepticism.
Anarchism is the only rational and consistent ideology.
An ideology that supports a state only works if all humans are good and wants to work together, but that's not the reality we live in and some bad person will always ruin it.
>>42
I like to see you live in Somalia for two weeks (and if you're still alive after that), come back and you'll be pleading that some form of Government needs to exist.
First time posting here. God DAMN you guys are depressing. I knew a 4chan politics board would be grim, but fuck. So many authoritarian types it seems. This is one of the first times I've felt inferior in a long time, I can't explain why. Does noko work here? Do I have to type a name? Let's see.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 5:50
>>44
I'm not an anarchist, but anarchy isn't supposed to be reached the way it was in Somalia, so that's not a good comparison.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 17:17
Paleo-conservative
Basically conservatism without any of the 'bad', 'unmodern' bits taken out.
Keep the blacks and browns out, queers and liberals down.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 17:28
>>47
You feel inferior? I don't get it. Relax bro, If you have something to say about "authoritarian types" just say it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 17:52
>>48
I'm open minded, I am willing to accept that we should look for alternatives to the state and I am aware that essentially the state is a monopoly over force, however you're here telling me "I AM AN INTELLECTUAL GENIUS WHO HAS FOUND A METHOD OF REPLACING THE STATE AND CREATING A UTOPIA" but you can't even give a straight answer to a question as simple as "how do you intend to stop criminal gangs from taking over in the power vacuum". Sorry but I'm not a tool.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 18:26
>>51
I wasn't the poster you were talking to before. Look at free market anarchism. If there's a demand for protection, companies will form specializing in protection. It might be violent for a while, but if it stabilizes, there will be a bunch of companies who's main motive is profit protecting anyone who pays. It's kind of like communism, everyone pays for the protection and they get it.
The only reason I don't support anarchy is because it pretty much ignores poor people and allows for a lot of human rights abuses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-07 18:35
>>51 "how do you intend to stop criminal gangs from taking over in the power vacuum"
this where the marxist roots of collectivist anarchists kick in
before there can be an anachist society you need socialism which will make everybody rich, educated and happy
too happy to fight each other or even commit crimes AND THUS there would be no need for law enforcement, judges, bereaucrats or anything that would make this ideology collapse like a house of cards
yes, that's what anarchists actually believe
bakunin would tell you that there'll be an invisible dictatorship - a secret society that'd guide your criminal gangs into advancing the anarchist cause (tin-foil-hat-bullshit was just as popular back then as it is today if not even more so)
individualist anarchists on the other hand just counter that argument with "YOU SEE THIS RIFLE? BRING IT ON, BITCH!"
justifying with either an "if i couldn't defend myself i didn't deserve to live in the first place" from stirner or "if i pay those gangs to protect me they'd be just like the police force we have right now - or even better since they're working for me now!" from rothbard
i'm not >>48 and neither am i an anarchist
just wanted to advance the anarchism discussion on /newpol/ a bit
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-08 5:08
>>52
You need someone to enforce property laws in order for there to be a free market, if "protection companies" decide what the laws are what's to stop them scrapping the free market and creating their own little fiefdoms?
>>56
Malatesta was just another mushy headed idealist who believed that anarchists are angels who would never abuse their power. If his dream were ever realised, criminal gangs claiming to be anarchist would take over, a Stalin like figure would unite them and create a vicious totalitarianist regime. Same shit, different asshole.
The protection companies would be in need of funding to enforce their fiefdom, and a company who screws its customers is not going to get many.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-09 15:44
>>58
That's difficult when you're too poor to find a means of moving and you can only survive by remaining indentured to your lord's fields.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-11 10:35
I'd say that the two people I'm most in line with are Cicero and Confucius. Cicero's republic to be exact.
One of the great things that Confucius realized is that all humans live in relationships, and that relationships are best managed through mutual obigations. I owe my parents respect, they owe me support while I'm a child ad advice later on. My leaders owe me the right to be heard via voting and letters and whatever, I should respect them enough to work for the good of the country.
Cicero's version of the Roman Republic sounds like the best system really. You vote, there's balance of power, and so on. No one really gets to lord it over everyone else. It's organized more by "tribe" than geographic area -- something that might make sense if there was some reason not to tie the senators to the states.
There ya go -- call me a Confucian Republican.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-17 0:45
Christ, the understanding of Anarchism on this board is beyond pathetic.
"can't even give a straight answer to a question as simple as "how do you intend to stop criminal gangs from taking over in the power vacuum". Sorry but I'm not a tool."
No sir, you are a tool because you're discussing something without even a basic understanding of it. Every school of Anarchist thought (except for the rare utopian strain) has an idea of how to protect people from other people. From privatized security and justice systems to local militias and neighborhood watches.
"The only reason I don't support anarchy is because it pretty much ignores poor people and allows for a lot of human rights abuses."
Oh yeah, Anarcho-communist and Libertarian Socialists hate the poor, right?
Anarchism is a radical egalitarian philosophy. Anarchists goals are to create a classless/stateless society. Both things you mention require hierarchy and are, by definition, not anarchistic.
"this where the marxist roots of collectivist anarchists kick in"
Yeah, Marxists and Anarchists are BFFs! This is why Marx kicked Bakunin and the entire Libertarian wing outa the First International and Stalin crushed the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War. Collectivism and small "C" communism for that matter have been around longer than Marx.
You don't even understand that the fundamental disagreement between Marxist and Anarchist is how to achieve a classless/stateless society. Anarchists don't believe in using the state to achieve a stateless society because that's fucking stupid.
I'm not saying you have to be an Anarchist, I'm just saying you should have a basic amount of knowledge on the topic before you start trying to tear it apart.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-17 1:56
>>60
Yeah, nice choices.
Confucius turned the Chinese into docile subservient cattle to a bunch of batshit insane narrow minded rulers and they never underwent an industrial revolution despite supposedly inventing everything.
The moment cicero opened his mouth Rome instantly stopped being an awesome innovative military superpower and degraded into a revolving door of dictators that relied on atrophying territory to mercenaries for it's survival instead of adapting and pwning as they did before until Constantine unfucked them and re-united the empire by instructing them to be christians instead of faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-17 19:10
Independant in the true sense of the word. I'm left wing on some things, right wing on others. I make my own opinions up on things. And my ideas change. As circumstances change so do my ideas. Have a free mind.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-17 21:46
>>61 "this where the marxist roots of collectivist anarchists kick in"
Yeah, Marxists and Anarchists are BFFs! This is why Marx kicked Bakunin and the entire Libertarian wing outa the First International and Stalin crushed the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War. Collectivism and small "C" communism for that matter have been around longer than Marx.
You don't even understand that the fundamental disagreement between Marxist and Anarchist is how to achieve a classless/stateless society. Anarchists don't believe in using the state to achieve a stateless society because that's fucking stupid.
I'm not saying you have to be an Anarchist, I'm just saying you should have a basic amount of knowledge on the topic before you start trying to tear it apart.
all notable collectivist anarchist concepts utilise marx' dialectical method as foundation which they derive their egalitarian goals from
there. in one sentence i contributed more to the anarchism discussion than you did in ten paragraphs
your entire post reeks of "LOL ur all dumb! im the only one who understands anarchism!" without adding anything worthwhile on-topic
why did you even bother to write such garbage?
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-17 21:52
oh and before you come back with "i'm tired of reading the same ignorant crap over and over again" i have to tell you that you're not the first arrogant prick to come to this board either
that last sentence of mine was a rhetoric question as i know the answer (which is that you're worthless newfag who needs to gtfo)
everything is a repost repost
* Disregard last transmission. Case is still open.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-23 18:05
Libertarian socialism is the only rational form of either philosophy.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-24 1:22
>>74
How exactly would that work? I've been told it would have the government run some agencies and do regulation that was absolutely necessary, and leave it to the free market utilize the rest. But this seems to not differ too much from the rest of libertarian thought.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-24 9:21
I hate democracy, republicanism, conservatism, socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism.
Republic: The country is run by wealthy businessmen and their families who pretend to care what you think.
Democracy: The country is run by wealthy business men who fuck over their families who pretend to care what you think.
Conservatism: The country is run by the families of wealthy businessmen who tell you what to think.
Socialism: The country is run by angry, previously not so wealthy men who tell you want to think.
Communism: The country is run by incensed, previously not so wealthy people who tell you what to think.
Fascism: The country is run by VIPPER who wants to rid the world of JEWS
Liberalism: The country is run by sex-mad people who don't really care what happens as long as they're getting laid
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-24 13:43
>>75
I don't know who told you that. Libertarian socialism is generally against free markets in that holders of the philosophy simply don't believe they operate as intended, nor could they ever operate as intended... at least under capitalism, to Mutualists, but what they call a free market is far different than most.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-25 19:24
"libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. Anyone who wants the State to control the economy is no libertarian.
>>79
Then you are a troll, or a cliche. I don't know which is worse.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-26 5:46
Pragmatism. I find most ideologies to be flawed, although I also lean towards both progressivism and libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-26 16:06
>>78
The only oxymoron is thinking corporate tyrannies are in any way 'libertarian'. In any case, libertarian socialism is an anti-state idea. Educate yourself on what words actually mean.
libertarianism and progressivism are more opposite than fire and ice.. you cannot be both... progressivism is a political machine birthed in 1918 with its roots in Eugenics. It also extolls the virtues of a strong State that oppresses its people in the name of "social justice"... libertarianism is the belief in the constitution and declaration of independence alone... wanting the state to stay 99% out of our lives. You are either a troll or among the most intellectually inept cliched puppets that have turned the United State of America from the greatest nation on Earth into the putrid smoldering pile of socialist diarrhea it has become.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-26 19:12
>>83
Why don't you go run off and read the fucking wikipedia article on Libertarianism before you spout this dumb bullshit.
Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for which there is no regulations or standard of fact... Why don't you know what you're saying beyond what you read on the internet before you allow your mouth to run off and regurgitate the ill-informed dribble that spouts from the "intellectuals" of the internet.. "intellectuals" mind you who lack the testicular fortitude to stand up to their claims in reality because in reality they are laughable.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 2:43
>>85
Yeah, it's true: Wikipedia has a safety mechanism to prevent article editing by any computer that's ever visited mises.org.
No, wait, you're just fucking delusional.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 2:48
>>85
"Libertarianism is the belief in the constitution and the declaration of indepedence alone" hahahahaha seriously you are the most ignorant motherfucker I have read today.
It originated in fucking Europe, dude, as a covert euphemism for ANARCHISM.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 16:15
I don't believe in ideology, I am pragmatic and logical, I accept my limitations and that I will never discover a one size fit all rule book that solves all the world's problems all the time, every time.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 16:28
>>88
Is there an appreciation of good and evil in your pragmatic and logical ideology, and do you believe that it's possible that someone could write a one size fits all rule book that could solve many of the worlds problems?
I am an Anarcho-Communist. Actually, a Cyber-Anarcho-Communist.
I don't believe in the monetary system and I'm fine with immediate action.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 21:25
>>89
I appreciate good and evil when other factors are taken into account such as the specific definition of good and evil and our fallible nature in determining what actions are good and evil.
It is possible that someone could come up with a perfect utopia but it's very unlikely and ironically you are even less likely to stumble across it if you are some kind of fruity head in the clouds idealist since this is an irrational method of looking for answers like >>90 here. A pragmatic plural practical approach yields more facts and more valid proven theories to work with.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-27 22:19
>>91
Thank you. I suggest that the pragmatic plural practical approach is an excellent environment for fostering communities of ideas, information ecologies if you will, that produce not only more valid theories to work with, but also the occasional true innovator, who is often initially seen as a stumbling, fruity, head in the clouds idealist.
Take >>90 I have absolutely no idea what he means by a Cyber-Anarcho-Communist, but I find the jargon compelling. The cyber element, addressing the profound impact of communication technologies on post industrial societies, is rational. And anarcho-communist? Initially they seem contradictory. Individuality vs. collectivism. But is this not the root of political discord? If it was possible to reconcile the two positions to the satisfaction of most, would this not be the answer? And would it not then be fairly called Cyber-Anarcho-Communism? I believe there is a theoretical model of just such a system. But again, I have no idea what >>90 meant.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-28 3:17
>>92
Anarcho-communism is not contradictory. Holy hell, Republican Catalonia were Libertarian Communists. I wish more people knew what they were talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-28 12:08
>>93
Never said it was. I said "Initially they seem contradictory." And rather than wishing that "more people knew what they were talking about." how about you spend a little more time clearly explaining what you're talking about. Then you might get your wish.
If the approach is plural that entails including those who are apparently crackpots in the "community of ideas", doesn't it? If good ideas don't get accepted instantly it's only because of natural limitations, it takes time for a person to rigorously examine something and understand why they are good ideas and they don't have the time/motivation to examine every single idea every crackpot injects into the ecology.
>>90 covers only a few factors, liberty, equality and the implications of IT are important and ideally we are better off with more of them but it isn't practical to declare this to be a revelation and that everything must be polarised to maximise them. Anarcho-communism would never work because essentially everything must be done heterarchically (democratically) restricting the use of hierarchy and autonomy when it might be more efficient, even if it doesn't go to extremes and just emphasises heterarchy it is still holding a bias which unnecessarily reduces the efficiency of organisations.
Factors like economic freedom, order and hierarchical power structures are often demonised by various groups critical of their excessive levels in their society, but this does not mean that they are an inherant evil and a society free from them would be a utopia. In fact they are often essential to create the conditions where equality and liberty can exist in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-29 1:36
>>97
No? What it is is yet another one of the thousands and potentially infinite number of hyphenated political pipe dreams that happen to be in fashion with a certain crowd right now. And if you had an ounce of perspective...
My political education is limited to a poly sci survey course a long time ago, so forgive me if I've forgotten your pet utopia. I'm sure it was listed when we did those crazy 19th century anarchists, running around with their little bombs. Was it chapter 6?
Twit.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-29 2:05
>>98 Thank you? wut.
I find it pragmatic and logical to express approval of intelligence.
If the approach is plural that entails including those who are apparently crackpots in the "community of ideas", doesn't it? If good ideas don't get accepted instantly it's only because of natural limitations, it takes time for a person to rigorously examine something and understand why they are good ideas and they don't have the time/motivation to examine every single idea every crackpot injects into the ecology.
of course.
Please share your reaction to this: I believe it may be possible to build a society that has three major levels. Private: The citizen who holds land enough for his survival, and eventual comfort, and full internet access.(And only electricity for this)
Public: Organic societies made up of Private Citizens from villages to city states, bound together by mutual benefit.
Civil Servant: An organization that serves a few noble goals. The maintenance of the internet, scientific research(currently, the two most crucial areas are physics, and genetics, 'cause we need to get off of this world and get more land, and stop dying of old age)and self sustenance.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-29 13:29
>>99
What is the Paris Commune? What is the First International? The First American Red Scare? The Industrial Workers of the World? What is Catalonia?
>>100
The conditions in this society are a bit vague, the power structure, state of the economy, the political culture and how each of these levels are supported remains undefined. The term "organic societies" is ill defined, I'm imagining some kind of cross between a building society and a local government.
>>101 Paris Commune!
Some militants declare themselves rulers of Paris during a 2 month power vacuum between Prussian troops leaving and French national guards returning, they failed to gain the support of the general population and were all killed. Mission failed.
First International!
Wealthy pseudo-intellectuals develop a deluded perspective of the world and attempt to start a global revolution, after being rejected by actual worker's unions with real aims it degraded into infighting and fell apart. Mission failed.
The First American Red Scare!
A bunch of hicks get hysterical over the soviet russia, a few strikes and 2 anarchist bombers, anarchists/communists/fascists/socialists join the bandwagon and claim a revolution is taking place from their armchairs. Nothing happens.
The Industrial Workers of the World!
Dwindled into insignificance as the 20s progressed due to their pointless obsession with marxist ideology. Mission failed.
Free Catalan Republic!
Neglected to make use of Barcelona's resources for the war effort or properly unite with the republicans so they could focus on forcing people into collective farms and make a few token reforms. Mission failed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-30 16:13
Canadian here.
I've always voted for the Conservative Party. Unlike its American counterpart, it doesn't fuck things up.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-31 17:47
No state can contain the beast. Kill everyone! Murder everyone you know! You got to get in there and keep fucking until everyone is all dead! Only He/she who stands atop the pile of bodies at the end is fit to rule the world.
What do you think should be done? If there were a law saying only atheists were allowed to run for political office, do you think this would fix the problem or make it worse? Would you be for it or against it?
I did not make that comment. I just liked your subtle use of a strawman argument to make your point.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 19:48
>>113 >>115
I said it, and there is a "rule to keep it out" in my country. It's called the First Amendment. You might say it's our highest law. And though I don't believe that only allowing atheists to run for public office(this too would be a clear violation of the first amendment), I'm personally sure that they couldn't do any worse. Face facts: the kind of theism that contemporary mainstream christianity represents quite nicely, along with most of the other ideas on theism and religions that are practiced today were finally identified by mainstream Philosophy as the dangerous fictions they are in the middle of the 19th century.
What I recommend is simple. An end to the kind of hypocrisy that these "faiths" only serve to facilitate. As people have proved themselves incapable of producing an effective system that addresses the interests of "conservatives" and "liberals" alike, I say we split them up. If you want to be free to do what you want; if you want to be self reliant, and cling to an ideology that prizes integrity and personal responsibility above all else, then so be it. Here's a piece of land, and the information you need to survive on it. Don't call us, we'll call you. If, on the other hand, you are willing to make sacrifices for a "greater good"; if you want to be part of a collective that has a "noble purpose", and the sacrifices you make provide the kind of comfort, security, and progress you desire then shut the fuck up and do as you're told. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, hypocrites.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 22:07
>>106 >>108 >>110
Same person. >>117
Stop side-stepping the question. What would you do to force groups you don't like from being represented by the government?
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-05 22:42
>>118
I'm not side-stepping shit. All group identities must be subject to the government, or independent of the government. The government's primary purpose is the founding of societies who do not wish to be subject to the government.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-06 2:29
>>119
Um, well, maybe in North Korea it would end there but in a democracy people also get their views represented by the government and there are often constitutional countermeasures against a tyranny of the majority.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-06 2:51
>>120
And all have failed. In the end they drown in their own corruption. Time to put-up or shut-up.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-06 15:46
Classical liberalist
Det Liberale Folkepartiet (Norway)
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-06 18:49
communism/socialism. Aslong as someone elected is leading and not someone apointed. Aslong as this person is smart and is proven to be smart by being elected into office. But we would have to wait and see if he has plans for the jews or plans for the economy(By killing the jews and takin der money.)
communist/socialist in nature but with democratically elected leaders and with most of the important decisions made by referendums like weather or not to go to war
i doubt it would work though. theres always the greedy bastards and jackasses
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-30 4:16
I happen to be of the persuasion of survival of the fittest in all aspects of life. Whether it is political, social, religious,etc. Whichever one survives is the best one. So whether that is socialism or pure capitalism does not matter. The best ideology will win.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-30 12:30
>>130
So if the fittest ideology contradicts the law of the survival of the fittest then you'd be ok with that.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-30 15:07
Conservative/Republican - I am a big fan of the survival of the fittest theme in the marketplace and on social issues.
Why would it contradict the law of survival of the fittest? It couldn't. If that was the philosophy most fitting and had the most power then it was right. It would have been the best one for taking power and having people believe in it. And if they died off then the one who survived would be the most powerful.
Socialist, or communist and Marxist-Leninist. Depends who gets to define the "-ism".
I want power to the people, abolishment of private property of the means of productions. The bourgeois must be thrown from their position, if they don't submerge to the request of the working class and retaliate they will must be forced.
Norway. Raudt (read: Red)
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-01 1:38
>>133
Well it might be the fittest ideology on the ideological arena but it will negate the survival of the fittest on other arenas. >>134
Evolution is too complex for that to happen, if a peacock's decoration is too energy intensive then it will starve and it's brother with a less energy intensive decoration will survive and mate with all the peavajayjays. If there is a drought and the peacocks have less energy available and they all die then the cause can be attributed to the drought rather than excessive sexual selection. >>135
What if when you give power to the people they use that power to restore the ability for people to own means of production simply because it is a more efficient means of managing complex industries which depend on accurate knowledge of supply and demand and thus depend on a market system?
Will you execute them like they did in all the communist countries during the 20th century? You probably wouldn't, but the thugs at the forefront of the revolution would and after their Stalin is in power they will kick you out like they did to Trotsky. That guy was such a dumbshit and so are you. I bet you didn't understand any of that.
Evolution is too complex for that to happen, if a peacock's decoration is too energy intensive then it will starve
If the peacock's decoration sucks, he always can deliver the fate of his fellos peacocks to the cuckoos in exchange for some *PERSONAL* fitting.
135 here...
Can't say you wrote anything difficult to understand in there. I have studied some Marxism, and communism in general, and study political science.
I don't think that will happen. Here is why. Say 500 workers own a car factory (I have noo idea how many people work at car factories, so this is a quite random number, but it will illustrate my point.), the workers will not vote to give their part of the factory to one person, because 499 would not gain on this.
And just because the ratio between supply and demand is complicated doesn't mean that you need a free market to solve it. It's not like the capitalist system really solves anything. Yes, it would be more effective, but e.g. there is more research on drugs to boost the male erection, than there is on HIV and AIDS medicine. Even if it is perfectly clear that there is a bigger need or "demand", if you want, for the medicine.
As far as Stalin. I will never go so far as call him a true communist. This was clear pretty much all the time, and was especially easy to see during and after the Moskva trials after the exclusion of Trotsky.
There will always be asses out there who wants too rule over people, but i don't think there will be more of them under socialism than capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-01 18:35
>>5
As far as I know democratic socialists are socialists who seek to divide the wealth and reduce capitalism through bourgeois parlamentarism.
Liberal socialists is bourgeois! Too right winged to be called socialists.
>>139
Well they could decide to sell the shares as individuals so they can afford more alcohol and lap dances, or they could vote for the company to issue more shares allowing capitalists to buy enough shares to gain equity over the factory, but whatever.
If we assume their ownership over the factory is mandatory and they cannot buy or sell shares they will be faced with a situation where 500 unqualified laborers have to perform in depth research and make 1000s of decisions and calculations that only a few educated professionals can make so the business can survive let alone prosper, they may decide to hire an educated professional to do this for them, maybe even pay him far more than the average worker and reward him for raising their wages, but they still cannot escape the same problems that any restrictive bureaucratic economic system is going to face, whether it be socialism or totally unfettered anarcho-capitalism. For instance if the tractor factory has to downsize or alter it's production methods to remain economically productive it may not be able to do this, the society will continue to support failing businesses just so people can keep their jobs when they should be accepting that things change and they should be seeking new employment. >>140
A democracy where practically everyone is petite bourgeoisie except a minority of retarded ghetto/trailer trash is pretty much as close to one of your mushy headed utopias as we're going to get in the real world, and you want to destroy it because you can't handle the fact that someone is richer than you. Lick my bourgeoishole.
>>147
Somalia's not a shit hole because of it's politics. It's a shit hole because it's a desert with a polluted coast, overpopulated by tribal cultures. A people who had moved beyond tribes and clans, who were in a sustainable environment(sustainable in part because of technology), would have an honest shot. Not that the world's governments would ever let that happen. It would look too tempting. That's why the US has maintained the embargo on Cuba.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 3:19
>>148
If the population of Somalia were exterminated and the land sold to Australian outback ranchers and the borders mined the GDP per capita would increase significantly. I think this proves capitalism is superior.
>>148
How could you be a Libertarian "Socialist" and an anarchist at the same time? I think you're confused. Also, how the hell would Libertarian Socialism work? Don't those two terms contradict each other?
>>151
No, because Cuba is communist, and the capitalists couldn't tolerate the existence of a stable affluent communist society during the cold war. If there was no embargo then Cuba would have been swimming in money from US tourism and trade. I thought that was clear, but I don't mind explaining things to slower folk.
>>152
Think so? Ever been there? Perhaps you should look into their medical system.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 18:58
>>150
lol, no, little baby. Libertarian socialism and anarchism are synonyms. Socialism doesn't mean "government control of everything", holy shit your education sucked.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 19:00
>>147
Somalia is not a libertarian socialist society.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 19:59
>>154
Alright, you don't have to be a condescending elitist prick about it. It was just a question. Could you explain about it more though?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 22:12
>>153
Perhaps you should look at their large middle class and better living standards they had BEFORE the communist revolution. Seriously, Cuba used to be a first world country. What the hell happened?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 22:12
>>157
I meant to say "better living standards than Europe"
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 23:10
>>153
>If there was no embargo then Cuba would have been swimming in money from US tourism and trade.
So why don't they negotiate with the US and try to get them to lift the embargo? Because socialism leads to excessive power centralisation and excessive power centralisation leads to corruption. Cuban children have to drink sewage because Fidel Castro has a grudge against the US, nice government you have there.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-11 23:44
>>157
Yeah, the Batista regime was wonderful. BTW, First, Second, and Third World refer to the Western capitalist nations, the communist(it was coined when the USSR was the big cheese), and the undeveloped, unaligned nations respectively, so Cuba just went from First World, and kissing our asses, to Second, preferring the taste of Russian ass. That aside, apparently the "large middle class" wasn't large enough to prevent the larger lower class from revolting. Then the usual dumb shit happened.
>>159 So why don't they negotiate with the US and try to get them to lift the embargo?
Now? That's a whole fucking paper. Because socialism leads to excessive power centralisation and excessive power centralisation leads to corruption.
Um... excessive power leads to corruption. And it happens for all the "isms". Quite the pickle; Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, applies not only to individuals but to any organization, and as any system or organization grows and its functions become less centralized and more comprehensive, it grows corrupt. That's why we all keep settling into oligarchies. And our rulers keep getting better and better at fooling us into thinking we live in free societies. It's a fucking joke.
And Cuban children do not drink sewage. Shame on you for spreading that kind of bullshit.
And I didn't say it was a nice government. It's just no worse that the shit we call governments.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 4:46
>>162
>excessive power leads to corruption
And socialism is a system that leads to excessive power centralisation...
As you look further into the processes behind why "power corrupts" and what causes organisational inefficiency and corruption it becomes increasingly obvious why socialism is not a good method of achieving your precious equality or anything desirable. A single system is essentially an independant hierarchy and because humans are limited in intelligence you need several rungs on the ladder because a human mind can only efficiently supervise a limited number of subordinate components or communicate effectively with it's superior, if the system becomes more complex or it grows in size you need more rungs and with each rung the distance between the king and the pawns increases, communications have to pass through more layers before they are registered and by that time they have usually been altered (for better or for worse), over-simplified or ignored altogether. Bear in mind we are talking about 10000s of spreadsheets, TPS reports, checks, balances, memos, e-mails and shit a day at this point.
The free market isn't a success as some argue because it utilises greed to motivate people, although this is an important factor (for better or for worse), it's more of a success because it is so flexible. You can have 1000s of autonomous units or one giant all consuming multi-national megacorporation depending on the nature of the economic activity, you even have kinds of democracy like building societies or the act of "voting with your wallet" in general. With a socialist system you must have a hierarchy at all times or the state (or people's republic or commune or worker's council or whatever you rename it) essentially has no control over the system and furthermore consumers don't really have much of a choice even if there is some kind of system of representation because of the size of the bureaucracy and the spin and corruption civil servants can get away with.
tl;dr: Corporations sometimes resemble bloated state bureaucracies but at least they are not mandatory.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 11:21
Please, both socialism and free market shit leads to corruption.
The only way to really combat corruption is to create a sense of community in the society at large. If you have that it doesn't matter if you have free market or socialism. There has to be group pressure from society that people must work and contribute.
This is however impossible in multicultural countries.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 12:03
>>164
But socialism leads to more corruption as I just proved, faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 13:14
>>165
Well yeah, free market at least gives people a chance to overturn corrupt assholes. I'd say a corrupt socialist state is worse than a corrupt free market state, but a clean socialist state is better than a clean free market state.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-12 15:37
>>166
hmm well you just said both socialism and the free market lead to corruption so I guess that settles it. Though arguably an ideal system would not eliminate the possibility of nationalising certain services as long as there are free market alternatives available.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-18 23:13
Forum: Troll Fox News. You up for it?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 16:36
the only ideology i truly agree with is humanism
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 17:16
Chinese nationalism. Gweilos will submit to our superiority!
>>169
Humanism is a great ideal, but it must be tempered with the knowledge that though rationality and mutual respect are the pinnacles of mortal ethics, there are those in the world who would fight against them for personal gain. I guess you could say that I'm a militant humanist. Fuck the haters - ALL of them.
>>178
Why not be both conservative in terms of economy and family/society?
Me personally I couldn't have it any other way. No more Federal Reserve (central bank) and no more planning of the economy, the currency should be backed by precious metals (e.g. gold and silver), free market, etc. all that jazz.
Family and society too. I mean it's up to the people to regulate themselves in their personal behavior. But I do believe that there should be things out there that promote such individual regulation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-29 3:30
>>180
I'd prefer it if you wouldn't whine like a little bitch whenever someone so much as states an opinion that conflicts with yours.
I want to do whatever I want and it still be legal, without actually knowing the law, as it would subconsciously unfluence me toward fucked in the ass.
Also one-person-per-planet sounds fun, if not for the speed of light being awfully small.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-29 14:40
>>184
So you want to be a barbarian hermit? Seriously though, I see what you're getting at, and I think it may be possible to aspire to a system that would afford such freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-29 15:03
>>185 "One cannot live in society and be free from society" -- Vladimir Ulyanov
>>183
Actually quite the opposite. I would call the current economic condition to be far from prosperous. In fact it's quite stagnant.
I wouldn't force society and family to be conservative, that goes against the idea of a free society. I would like it to be promoted, but nobody should be forced to live in such a way if they don't wish to.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-29 17:05
>>188
I said humanity would stagnate. Do you equate the economic condition with humanity? Do you believe that the two current major economic philosophies are mutually exclusive, and/or that a new philosophy will not be conceived?
And by the way, though there's no telling how the left would have screwed it up, one can't deny that the right has been at the reigns for quite a while, and that they led us into this swamp.
Then depending on what you mean by "promoted", I respect your understanding of conservatism. In matters of society, family, and morality, I view myself as being conservative in the extreme.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-29 19:36
>>189 you're talking about American politics, right? Who exactly do you consider to be "the left", then? I can only hope that not Democrats, which are centre-right by objective standards.
Leftists (CPUSA, Green Party) virtually never held any power.
OK. What reasons do you believe would make it stagnate?
Do you equate the economic condition with humanity?
No. That's just one facet of it.
Do you believe that the two current major economic philosophies are mutually exclusive, and/or that a new philosophy will not be conceived?
Are you speaking of the Keynesian and Austrian school of economic philosophies? Well, Keynesian philosophy is what is put into practice now. To me, it hasn't exactly shown itself to be a good philosophy when put into such practice. As for a new philosophy being conceived, I cannot say. Although if one does form I would be willing to have a serious look into it.
And by the way, though there's no telling how the left would have screwed it up, one can't deny that the right has been at the reigns for quite a while, and that they led us into this swamp.
Well the thing is there's really not much difference between the left or right or Republicans and Democrats. They're both big spenders and they're both for bigger government.
I say the whole left/right, Republican/Democrat name blaming game is completely pointless. It really draws people away from the overall bigger picture.
Then depending on what you mean by "promoted", I respect your understanding of conservatism. In matters of society, family, and morality, I view myself as being conservative in the extreme.
Well, I'm not exactly sure myself how it should be promoted. I certainly wouldn't want the public to be saturated with it, that's for sure. That is something I think the people should ultimately decide for themselves. But if people promote, I wouldn't object to it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-30 18:01
You're not an intellectual for thinking you don't have enough freedom in an egalitarian 1st world democracy. You're a spoiled brat.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-30 18:35
>>192
If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I would have freed thousands more.
-Harriet Tubman
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-31 4:45
>>191
Why do I believe humanity would stagnate?
Left=Liberal=Progressive vs. Right=Conservative=Regressive
It's just the nature of the beast. I wrote this in a thread a while ago:
Conservatives want things to stay as they are, or move backwards. Liberals want to move things forward. Conservatives believe that the things that we have known for a long time are the most important things, because they are what make us what we are, so they endeavor to preserve them. Liberals believe that the new things we have learned are the most important, because it is often a failure to understand these things that causes most of the direct suffering, so they endeavor to implement them.
But there are many bad old ideas that conservatives cling to. And there are many bad new ideas that liberals cleave to.
Each wishes only to prevent suffering.
Liberals are more willing to sacrifice certain behaviors in the interests of cooperation and progress.
Conservatives believe that the sacrifice of some of these behaviors is a bad idea that will change us for the worse. Sometimes they are correct.
The liberals are the people to thank for progress. But they're also the ones to blame when fundamentals are abandoned and chaos ensues. The liberals are the brain, and the courage. The conservatives are the backbone, and the spirit.
An environment that is politically, economically, intellectually, spiritually, and socially conservative, and they're adherents do tend to bunch together, is not capable of conceiving, nurturing, and implementing new ideas as quickly as a liberal environment. Anywhere near as quickly. So slowly that I think the use of the wore stagnate is fair. I'm reminded of the old conservative complaints about liberal intellectuals and liberalism in Universities. It's not that they are smarter per se, but there is a much greater tendency among liberals to experiment and take risks.
Regarding "economics", I am not referring to Keynesian/Austrian "schools" or any of the other purely speculative nonsense that people continue to create to prop up a system with fundamental flaws. No amount of witchcraft will ever be able to support a large society based primarily on how it distributes it's resources. I do have a plan, but this is already getting tl. Well the thing is there's really not much difference between the left or right or Republicans and Democrats. They're both big spenders and they're both for bigger government.
In practice, I agree.
And there has only ever been one ethical way to promote a philosophy: Lead by example.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-31 5:18
>>193
Freed from what? I can do anything I want. Though I suppose this is largely because I am willing to put in the effort to earn what I want.
I guess you lazy proles should either shut the fuck up or kill yourselves.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-31 5:24
>>195
Sounds like you should spend some of that big money you earn on anger therapy. I wonder why you're so angry? Perhaps it's because you can't really do anything you want, and deep down inside you know that you're a slave.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-31 5:31
>>194
>my team is better than yours hurfdederpdederp
Liberal = favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Conservative = cautiously moderate or purposefully low
There is nothing in the definition of conservative that says they resist change, just that they are more rational since they are cautious and moderate which is a good thing in politics because you can't just play around with people's lives, decisions have to be made carefully.
>>194 Left-wingers go after egalitarianism, Right-wingers go after individualism.
Just because American right-wing is reactionary doesn't mean all right-wing ideologies and organizations are.
Reactionaries (right-wing by your distinction) could choose to undermine a new libertarian regime.
Revolutionaries (left-wing by your distinction) could choose to choose to establish a feudal caste system after seeing how far egalitarianism got the society.
Because I was raised with Judeo-Christian ethics and even now as an atheist I can't separate myself from it. Just like Marx, the First International, Emma Goldman, Chomsky etc.
Yeah, it's all a point of view. It's not as much that there are no truth-values in ethics, it's that ethics are relative to (sub)cultures that espouse them.
This is the ideology that makes most sense to me, not the one I agree with, though.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 14:08
Holy fuck, sleep deprivation does wonders to communication skills. Last paragraph referred to anarcho-communism, not what I wrote in the previous two paragraphs.
I don't claim that Monopolies exist due to State meddling. The State tries too hard to help weak, incompetent organisations stay alive and disadvantage strong organisations in some effort to "even the stage".
What bullshit. In an Anarcho-Capitalist environment, the best and strongest corporations will rise to the top and the weak ones will die. This will be better for everyone. I, as a citizen, have no need for weak, pathetic businesses kept alive by the government.
True Capitalism cannot happen whilst there is a government.
Slavery? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, people would only be bound by work contracts. Otherwise they could just change workplace.
De-facto dictatorship could only really work if one corporation gained control of a great amount of areas of society and as such are able to exert that much influence and power.
But this wouldn't last long. In a society where multiple corporations compete for police work, it wouldn't stand. If you were a rival police force and saw that a powerful police force was obviously breaking the law and attempting to create a government of their corporation, wouldn't you use this chance to easily remove one of your rivals? It's self-governing.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 10:06
>>214
What if this corporation is powerful enough to stop the others from enforcing the law apon it?
Fuck. I was going to play devil's advocate and defend anarcho-capitalism, wrote several paragraphs but accidentally pressed ctrl+w in Opera and it ate my text, despite undo-close-tab. It was probably tl;dr anyway.
What if this corporation is powerful enough to stop the others from enforcing the law apon it?
Because others would start shooting 7.62x51 FMJ at the CEOs, shareholders etc. There's no Supreme Court that says something doesn't break a law because they said so.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 4:14
>>219
You'd have to have a pretty delicate balance of power for that to work and I'm not even sure if a polyopoly over force is even desirable compared to a monopoly over force governed by a representative system of government. If you have 5 different sets of laws operating in one area there's going to be a lot of disagreements.
Yeah. Her role as the Queen of Australia is a separate and equal duty to her role as the Queen of the UK and the 14 other States and Territories which she rules over.
We have an Australian government and no British influence in our decision-making process. We are not a colony, we just happen to have the same Queen.
Australian Republicans would prefer we had a President, but I disagree.
"Ideologies" are the cretins surrogate for religion in the secular world. Both religion and ideologies such as "liberalism" "communism" provide him with a series of easy digestable absolute truths pertaining to the world in general.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 11:00
>>231
I wouldn't really describe it as religion, more like group bonding, sort of like how bros with strong feelings of brodom often become sports fans and share in each others sexual excitement watching men in tight pants sweat it out together on a football field, except religions and extremists take themselves too seriously and do not have a means of venting their latent desires.