What ideology do you most agree with?

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.

Love

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
Why doesn't anarchy work then?

>>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.

>>44

On the contrary, I'm a Nigger.

>>45
^* African American

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.

>>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.

Paleo-conservative

Basically conservatism without any of the 'bad', 'unmodern' bits taken out.

Keep the blacks and browns out, queers and liberals down.

>>47
You feel inferior? I don't get it. Relax bro, If you have something to say about "authoritarian types" just say it.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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?

>>53
Like I said. I like to keep an open mind.

Anarchist, i like Malatesta ideas.

>>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.

>>54

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.

>>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.

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.

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.

>>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.

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.

>>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?

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

>>65
newfag
Back to /b/, please just for using that word.

>>66
nigger

^* African American

* nigger

[sup]^* African American

^* African American

>>70 Dammit my ^BB _CODE failure.

case closed then

^* Disregard last transmission. Case is still open.

Libertarian socialism is the only rational form of either philosophy.

>>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.

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

>>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.

"libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron.  Anyone who wants the State to control the economy is no libertarian.

I am a conservative and I vote republican
U.S.A.

>>79
Then you are a troll, or a cliche.  I don't know which is worse.