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.