Political Preference

[heavycola]

Dude, you must have been replying while i was busy editing. I do apologise for my earlier tone, new year's resolution was to not be such a dick online but today has been shitty so far and i couldn't help myself. I would much rather just argue

Mutual Consensus is defined as two or more individuals agreeing without threat of force or coercion to set terms in social, economic, or political contract. In short, it's agreeing to terms without being forced too.

of course i understand what mutual consensus is, and as you said later it happens every day. But on any sort of meaningful scale? And without force? You say that retribution backs these ideas up. How is that doable without force? Everyone decides the rules for themselves, it seems to me.

Justly acquired Property would be defined as any thing you gain from your labor, which can only exist through your Life and Liberty, or mutual agreement. Anything that would otherwise force or coerce is unethical and would be subject to retribution.

Again, "unethical", "mutual agreement" - According to whom? Who does the West Bank belong to? Where is the consensus there? is one possible? Would it be possible if simply left to the Israeli and Palestinian populations? How could they be expected to leave their ideas of belonging and of nationhood behind?

The State/Corporation. I agree that they are almost interchangeable, but elimination would topple the other.

What about the corruption charges levelled against BAe that have just gone tits up after prime ministerial intervention, for one recent example?

Why are you complaining to me about it? I abhorrently oppose such things and am surprised that you haven't already come to the conclusion that this could have been cut short by a lack of existence of a government and the Corporations that it supports.

I'm not suggestign you don't oppose such things, of course not. My point was that there is no balance of power between the mutlinationals and states anymore, that in fact the former have the power and have done since they became global entities. Maybe where you see the state, I see the corporation, and maybe 100 years ago i might have agreed with you.

First, it's nothing like Mr. Nates' arguments. I support my views with the rational premise that all men are the ends to their own means. His arguments are nothing short of a pedantic endeavor into circular logic.

Second, it isn't pointless if you value your own life. Apparently, you don't value your own life, but that is your choice, only to be made by you.

Again, I apologise for the 'pointless' comment. My bad.

Your rational premise doesn't wash if I believe that we need to look after the weak and the dispossessed. It almost sounds Thatcherite, although forgive me if i'm wrong there... You said altruism was weak - I see it as a moral good and part of what being human is all about. That's all. I do value my own life but i value others', too. Would i jump on a grenade for my platoon? I have no idea, but i don't know for sure that I wouldn't and i would like to think that I would.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Depends on your values and the nuances views. If you value other lives to the point of being a suicidal altruist, it may have meaning for you, but it is also irrational. If you value other lives in the form of company, then in a way you do value yourself, as you wish to make your experience more pleasurable.

How about some middle ground. The world isn't black and white, its not the case that if you value the lives of others you are an altruist (i'll not use the term suicidal as I responded to that earlier). Another quality I attribute to maturity; the capacity to acknowledge we do not live in a polarised world and the acceptance that in nearly every aspect of our lives there are many and varying degrees between each end of the spectrum.

I agree that the world is not dichotomous, and if my response gave that my impression, I apologize. I was only trying to give examples of what could be myriads of possibilities. My reasoning still stands, though.

[Bertros Bertros]

Realism?

No, realism. Notice the difference?

Same thing. I admit I get a bit caps happy, but I usually cap a word if I am stressing it, or noting its significance to a specific concept. Just an old trait from a forum I used to post on.

I disagree, not only through the use of capitalisation, but in the directing of your response to just the word in its own right you infer the philospophical concept of Realism, as opposed to my meaning, that it isn't actually realistic to suggest you need to be ready to defend yourself, with arms, against your government.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Dude, you must have been replying while i was busy editing. I do apologise for my earlier tone, new year's resolution was to not be such a dick online but today has been shitty so far and i couldn't help myself. I would much rather just argue

Mutual Consensus is defined as two or more individuals agreeing without threat of force or coercion to set terms in social, economic, or political contract. In short, it's agreeing to terms without being forced too.

of course i understand what mutual consensus is, and as you said later it happens every day. But on any sort of meaningful scale? And without force? You say that retribution backs these ideas up. How is that doable without force? Everyone decides the rules for themselves, it seems to me.

Justly acquired Property would be defined as any thing you gain from your labor, which can only exist through your Life and Liberty, or mutual agreement. Anything that would otherwise force or coerce is unethical and would be subject to retribution.

Again, "unethical", "mutual agreement" - According to whom? Who does the West Bank belong to? Where is the consensus there? is one possible? Would it be possible if simply left to the Israeli and Palestinian populations? How could they be expected to leave their ideas of belonging and of nationhood behind?

The State/Corporation. I agree that they are almost interchangeable, but elimination would topple the other.

What about the corruption charges levelled against BAe that have just gone tits up after prime ministerial intervention, for one recent example?

Why are you complaining to me about it? I abhorrently oppose such things and am surprised that you haven't already come to the conclusion that this could have been cut short by a lack of existence of a government and the Corporations that it supports.

I'm not suggestign you don't oppose such things, of course not. My point was that there is no balance of power between the mutlinationals and states anymore, that in fact the former have the power and have done since they became global entities. Maybe where you see the state, I see the corporation, and maybe 100 years ago i might have agreed with you.

First, it's nothing like Mr. Nates' arguments. I support my views with the rational premise that all men are the ends to their own means. His arguments are nothing short of a pedantic endeavor into circular logic.

Second, it isn't pointless if you value your own life. Apparently, you don't value your own life, but that is your choice, only to be made by you.

Again, I apologise for the 'pointless' comment. My bad.

Your rational premise doesn't wash if I believe that we need to look after the weak and the dispossessed. It almost sounds Thatcherite, although forgive me if i'm wrong there... You said altruism was weak - I see it as a moral good and part of what being human is all about. That's all. I do value my own life but i value others', too. Would i jump on a grenade for my platoon? I have no idea, but i don't know for sure that I wouldn't and i would like to think that I would.

I'd love to respond to this, and I will, scouts oath, but I have been up all night here listening to my infant son cry. I need to head off to bed (it's 8 in the morning here XD), so I'll get back to this in several hours. G'night all.

[Anarchist]

WOW, there was alot to read there granted i started skimming towards the end. I hope i dont forget any points i wish to make.
First off i support Jesse in the majority of his statements(her?)

The capitalism that he refers to is very differant from our own,you must remember that in his philosophy there is no longer a government to control the market. Without this support most corps. would fail simply because for example the people of Brazil no longer are forced to stand by and watch their forests be destroyed for paper. it be a True Free Market.

if you could choose between dealing with a Corps. or dealing with your neighbor down the street who would you choose? Its an example of the Barter system with money still in existance. Since there are no more governments there is noone left to bribe. There is no more control except for what the community(mutual consenses) will allow.

I support everyone being armed, i honestly do. Only wish we could return to the days of the sword. i support this because (see posted above) it allows the communty to rule their regions. If a small band of men were to come to your town, point a gun at your family,begin raping the daughters, and eating your food. It becomes YOUR responsibility to see that justice is done. If you do nothing, then you have no right to survive. You speak of wishing that people live long and healthy lives, If you do nothing-Doesnt that show that you truly do not care at all? its not about the quantity of life,its about the quality. There is more HONOR in this

The State- I dont have to explain this do i? Man ruling over other Man? telling you what you may and may not do? primitive

Organised religion; Are not about faith they are about Money,all of them are cults. True belief resides in your spirit and there alone.
(im an agnostic/Tantric/Bhuddist/Pagan/Taoist/Hindu/Wiccan/Mormon)
-I choose what i believe

Taxes are forced, they are legalised theft

Mutual Consenses; Is possible in the simplest of things, the most beautiful of things, the most important of things.
The way this world works is through force(im including paychecks)
Someone said that nothing great or important is ever gained through "mutual consenses" what about lending a hand? giving a loan? writing a song? buying a car(that u cant afford) Making love?
The greatest of things are done through agreemant- All we anarchists want is nothing to be done through force.

Except Justice

[Bertros Bertros]

Hey Anarchist, welcome to the debate. It seems to me that you were born a few centuries too late at the very least. A return to the barter system? The way of the sword? To use your word; primitive.

[Anarchist]

way more then that

3,000 years too late
Take me back to India during the Aryan empire

now i have to wait another 3,000 years
When i can have my own pirate ship


i even missed the 60's

[btownmeggy]

I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so far to the Right that I end up on the Left.

You're not on the left. I too hate the terminology left-right (though not as much as this liberal-conservative bullshit), but sometimes its useful. You probably don't consider yourself a rightist, but you are. A frightening one at that.

I agree that Left and Right are not only vague, but completely lacking in reason and are based off a totally arbitrary method. It was merely a joke that my friends and I use, because Anarchism is classically considered a Leftist ideology. In general, though, I use the Objective-Rothbardian scale, that typifies "Left" as anything being more government (Fascism and Communism are ultimately the same, with petty differences) and "Right" as being anything with less government.

As for my frightening-ness, I would rather like to know why I am frightening.

Anarchism is classically considered a leftist ideology because Anarchism developed as social anarchism, mostly promoted by syndicalists. This hints at where I disagree with your Left=government, right=less government scheme. Leftism, as I see it, finds power and strength in collectivity. Leftism's pinnacle of strength is in the pinnacle of collectivity, inclusive and equal. Rightism finds power and strength in an individual. Rightism's pinnacle of strength is the ultimate individual, all-powerful.

Your ideology, as you've professed it, will necessarily tends towards rightism. Without a government (or some such collective body) with a modest monopoly of power, capitalism cannot function. The strongest, best-armed individuals (which you apparently aim to be should the scenario ever arise) can easily take what he (very unlikely to be a she) wants by force, completely negating the usefulness of capitalism.

[Anarchist]

Personally i never felt that capitalism works at all,
But Anarcho-Capitalism would be better then what we have now.

i still stand-money was a bad idea

[luns101]

Jesse,

Capitalism has proven itself to be a liberator from poverty. People are not flocking to get into Socialist or Communist countries. They flee to capitalist countries because of the ability to accumulate, produce, and create wealth.

Wealth is the enemy of poverty. Capitalism provides the opportunity to create wealth.

I would classify myself as conservative republican. My friends think I am libertarian. I vote republican though because I don't think libertarians take a strong enough stand against crime and punishment.

Nice to read the other posts here as well.

[happysadfun]

I am conservative:

I believe that the nation is important ad greater than any one person.

I believe that the right of citizens to bear arms is essential.

Religion is an important part of society. Without religion there is almost never ethics or morals.

Capitalism is the best economic system, because it allows you to keep what you earn rather than to spread it equally between people who work hard and people who are lazy.

The misery of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and the blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. (Eloquent version of what I just said.)

A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handles.

There is a major difference between right and wrong, and the wrong should usually be outlawed. The best use of governmental powers is to outlaw things that people shouldn't do and to promote things that people should do.

Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot.

Crime should be punished swiftly and justly. Murder should be punishable by death, attempted murder by life in prison, and other crimes according to how badly they affect society, how badly they affect the victim, and how badly they affect the nation.

Protesting is almost always useless.

Left-Right Politics
Left= more economic control.
Right= more economic freedom.
Libertarian= more individual freedom
Authoritarian= less individual freedom

Radical form of...
... conservatism: extreme nationalism.
... liberalism: lib-communism.
... libertarianism: anarchism.
... socialism: communism/Marxism

Charts
Conservatism: Authoritarian Right
"Libertarianism": Libertarian Right
Liberalism: Libertarian Left
Socialism: Authoritarian Left

A Note
When you hear "Libertarian," it is probably talking about the Libertarian Right.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Gonna start from the bottom up.

I am conservative:

I believe that the nation is important ad greater than any one person.

On what rational premise? Do you believe that the State has the right to sacrifice Citizens if it deems it necessary?

Religion is an important part of society. Without religion there is almost never ethics or morals.

False. Various philosophies have come forth with various terms of ethics and morals (For instance, Objectivism or Utilitarianism). Religion does not hold a gammut on ethics and morals.

There is a major difference between right and wrong, and the wrong should usually be outlawed. The best use of governmental powers is to outlaw things that people shouldn't do and to promote things that people should do.

How do you propose we rationally quantify and delineate what is right and what is wrong?

Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot.

I wish to put a harsh expletive here, but I think I'll keep it cool and say that the man was a fraud and of the most recent politicians we had deserved to be put against the wall.

Crime should be punished swiftly and justly. Murder should be punishable by death, attempted murder by life in prison, and other crimes according to how badly they affect society, how badly they affect the victim, and how badly they affect the nation.

First, what is accomplished by execution? It does not solve a crime, it certainly isn't a deterrent, it doesn't reverse what the criminal has done, and it does not bring closure for the victims family.

Second, why would you protest taxation and support "Capitalism" (which is more of a Mercantilism given your other stances) but stress a need for a prison system, which operates off of the taxation system?

Third, why the three methods of judgement? What rational quantifier can you give for each?

Protesting is almost always useless.

I couldn't disagree more. Protesting started the very nation you reside in.

Left-Right Politics
Left= more economic control.
Right= more economic freedom.
Libertarian= more individual freedom
Authoritarian= less individual freedom

Radical form of...
... conservatism: extreme nationalism.
... liberalism: lib-communism.
... libertarianism: anarchism.
... socialism: communism/Marxism

Charts
Conservatism: Authoritarian Right
"Libertarianism": Libertarian Right
Liberalism: Libertarian Left
Socialism: Authoritarian Left

What does this have to do with the discussion?

A Note
When you hear "Libertarian," it is probably talking about the Libertarian Right.

Wut?

[qeee1]

Jesse,

Capitalism has proven itself to be a liberator from poverty. People are not flocking to get into Socialist or Communist countries. They flee to capitalist countries because of the ability to accumulate, produce, and create wealth.

Wealth is the enemy of poverty. Capitalism provides the opportunity to create wealth.

There's only so much wealth in the world though, as all wealth is ultimately tied to men and raw materials. It can be increased, but it is still tied to what it started from. Capatalism doesn't create wealth, it just provides a system within which it is generated.

Capatalist countries started wealthy, and have saught to maintain this... many third world countries who have opened their doors to free trade have found the wrong end of the stick of capatalism.

I agree American politics is more or less a joke at this stage, but we must always endeavour to change it.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Anarchism is classically considered a leftist ideology because Anarchism developed as social anarchism, mostly promoted by syndicalists.

On the socialist front, syndicalists did indeed promote Anarchism, but the Fiscal Right/Social Left also had a strong following, most notably led by Spooner, Tucker, Molinari and Bastiat.

This hints at where I disagree with your Left=government, right=less government scheme. Leftism, as I see it, finds power and strength in collectivity. Leftism's pinnacle of strength is in the pinnacle of collectivity, inclusive and equal. Rightism finds power and strength in an individual. Rightism's pinnacle of strength is the ultimate individual, all-powerful.

Precisely. Collectivity implies benevolence* and mutual work for a total common "good" (in the case of Communism, the "people", the case of Fascism, the "State"). Why would two forms of collectivism be on opposite sides of the Scale, with the balance being no government? They wouldn't, they would simply be separate branches on the Left end of the Scale.

*However, such benevolence would need to be enforced, which would lead to a de facto state, an unnatural hierarchy, which is the complete opposite of the intentions of Anarchism.

Your ideology, as you've professed it, will necessarily tends towards rightism. Without a government (or some such collective body) with a modest monopoly of power, capitalism cannot function.

Incorrect. Capitalism suffers under government, as do the people who live under the government suffer as well.

The strongest, best-armed individuals (which you apparently aim to be should the scenario ever arise) can easily take what he (very unlikely to be a she) wants by force, completely negating the usefulness of capitalism.

With the concept of retribution and the interest of profit, this would be a most unwise choice. First, it would send up a red flag to those around the offender, and they would be notably subdued. Second, the goal is profit; public image and appeal are essential.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

There's only so much wealth in the world though, as all wealth is ultimately tied to men and raw materials. It can be increased, but it is still tied to what it started from. Capatalism doesn't create wealth, it just provides a system within which it is generated.

Which is not inherently bad, or unethical.

Capatalist countries started wealthy, and have saught to maintain this... many third world countries who have opened their doors to free trade have found the wrong end of the stick of capatalism.

You're confusing Capitalism with Mercantilism.

[heavycola]

Religion is an important part of society. Without religion there is almost never ethics or morals.

and then this:

There is a major difference between right and wrong, and the wrong should usually be outlawed. The best use of governmental powers is to outlaw things that people shouldn't do and to promote things that people should do.

This encompasses what I believe is wrong with the US today. I will leave the UK out - these days this is a secular, multicultural society that i am glad to be a member of.

In fact it's weird that a country with a monarch who is also head of the national church should have become so irreligious, whereas the country founded by secularists should now be run by a bunch of fundagelical whackjobs. But I digress.

And here:

Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot.

...is where I gave up reading.

Bill Hicks:

"I was over in Australia, and everyone’s like: ‘Are you proud to be an American?’ And I was like, ‘Um, I don’t know, I didn’t have a lot to do with it. You know, my parents fucked there, that’s about all.”

Patriotism is bullshit. McCarthy was a cocksucker who undermined everything the US constitution - a secular document, i might add, HSF - stands for. Go see The Crucible.



Jesse - without enforcement, what is to stop human nature taking over? You say, rightly, that enforcement leads to a de facto state, and then argue that taking property by force would lead to the offenders being 'notably subdued'. This is a black and white example, however. At some point, over some dispute, there will be no consensus and what then? Who decides? Who has the authority? When you first posted i had you down as a pessimist but you seem now to be even more of an optimist than me. People just don't behave that way. Communism isn't evil (i'm talking to HSF here), it's just misguided. Like the idea that we can all come to a consensus on what constitues property rights, justice etc. We need the state. It's fucked up, rusting and often does us wrong, but that's up to us, really.

[qeee1]

Which is not inherently bad, or unethical.

That is... debatable to say the least.

You're confusing Capitalism with Mercantilism.

Could you explain what you mean exactly?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Could you explain what you mean exactly?

Capitalism is unrestricted commerce, with no government interference. Mercantilism on the other hand, is a product of Capitalist and Protectionist elements, which can only operate with the help of the government. It's when you have government enforced monopolies and businesses do you see smaller nations exploited.

[Stopper]

Capitalism is unrestricted commerce, with no government interference. Mercantilism on the other hand, is a product of Capitalist and Protectionist elements, which can only operate with the help of the government.

As soon as I saw this thread starting, I knew I didn't want to be drawn into it, but I have to say I can't imagine a "capitalism" that doesn't have "government interference" in it, or as I would call it, the steadying hand of the State. It's probably my lack of imagination (or lack of reading), but I can't imagine any kind of anarcho-capitalism that wouldn't degenerate into a world where life for a lot of people would be nasty, brutish and short.

Sorry if I come across as prejudiced, but your thinking reminds me of those weird American survivalists, and considering the number of right-wing libertarians in this forum, I can't help but think this kind of thinking is a product of American society as it is. You people are weird. If only a British (or even European) conservative would come on these forums one of these days, at least I'd feel like there was some normality to my opponents...

[qeee1]

I don't think that the ills of the third world can be blamed solely upon government intereference (nor capatalism supported by government interference), but in some cases are a product of capatalism itself.

[Hamlet]

I am conservative:

I believe that the nation is important ad greater than any one person.

I believe that the right of citizens to bear arms is essential.

Religion is an important part of society. Without religion there is almost never ethics or morals.

Capitalism is the best economic system, because it allows you to keep what you earn rather than to spread it equally between people who work hard and people who are lazy.

The misery of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and the blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. (Eloquent version of what I just said.)

A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handles.

There is a major difference between right and wrong, and the wrong should usually be outlawed. The best use of governmental powers is to outlaw things that people shouldn't do and to promote things that people should do.

Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot.

Crime should be punished swiftly and justly. Murder should be punishable by death, attempted murder by life in prison, and other crimes according to how badly they affect society, how badly they affect the victim, and how badly they affect the nation.

Protesting is almost always useless.

Left-Right Politics
Left= more economic control.
Right= more economic freedom.
Libertarian= more individual freedom
Authoritarian= less individual freedom

Radical form of...
... conservatism: extreme nationalism.
... liberalism: lib-communism.
... libertarianism: anarchism.
... socialism: communism/Marxism

Charts
Conservatism: Authoritarian Right
"Libertarianism": Libertarian Right
Liberalism: Libertarian Left
Socialism: Authoritarian Left

A Note
When you hear "Libertarian," it is probably talking about the Libertarian Right.

just one question. why does morality come from religon?

[Anarchist]

Capitalism is unrestricted commerce, with no government interference. Mercantilism on the other hand, is a product of Capitalist and Protectionist elements, which can only operate with the help of the government.

As soon as I saw this thread starting, I knew I didn't want to be drawn into it, but I have to say I can't imagine a "capitalism" that doesn't have "government interference" in it, or as I would call it, the steadying hand of the State. It's probably my lack of imagination (or lack of reading), but I can't imagine any kind of anarcho-capitalism that wouldn't degenerate into a world where life for a lot of people would be nasty, brutish and short.

Sorry if I come across as prejudiced, but your thinking reminds me of those weird American survivalists, and considering the number of right-wing libertarians in this forum, I can't help but think this kind of thinking is a product of American society as it is. You people are weird. If only a British (or even European) conservative would come on these forums one of these days, at least I'd feel like there was some normality to my opponents...

well if this helps any. i was born in nederland(not conservative) and have (unfortunately) spent the last few years of my life in the land of the slaves
Granted im not outside of the USA, and im not a conservative.However I am NOT amerikan. I say give the statue of liberty back to the french,What america needs now is to reinstate the guilitine-thats my honest opinion. King louie!!!

[Anony#1]

just one question. why does morality come from religon?

because it's thousands of years old, and since we're social creatures that would make us hold traditions longer? there's plenty of reasons, but no definate answer...probably because 'morality' doesn't come from religion just the current social construct. >__>

[Anarchist]

if anything religion shows us the best examples of unmorality

i think our surroundings teach us morals,our teachers in life show us morals.ourselves decide what morals we follow

[D.IsleRealBrown]

if anything religion shows us the best examples of unmorality

i think our surroundings teach us morals,our teachers in life show us morals.ourselves decide what morals we follow

Never heard of it, please explain.