Topic: lefties righties (Read 4273 times)

I wasn't picking sides, just presenting another point of view.

That said, consider the magnitude of wars fought with state backing. I doubt there could have been a private funding or collaboration for the Manhattan project, icbm's, or other tools of global extinction. Only recently have private citizens been successful at launching spacecraft, based on 80+ years of state funded r&d.

Historically large advances in military hardware have required the backing of a state or city state. Standing armies have also historically been either state funded or a form of slavery. There are instances or private armies challenging state powers, of which they became the state themselves. The war of the roses for example.

I think the most central issue these days is fiat funded, unending wars. Eventually a private army would run out of money, this isn't an issue for a state with a central bank, or particularly the world reserve currency.

thats a good one but i would say distribute mainly but also redistribute... i would say ppl tend to think that its like 70-80% redistribution and 20-30% distribution but i think this is a wrong perception.

I don't see why wars would be any harder to start without a state. All it would need is the people with the most wealth and control over society to push others in that direction. Just like now.

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth. They distribute wealth (after taking a big cut to pay for all the bureacrats). By doing so, they also discourage creating wealth.

In the free market wealth is produced and exchanged, not distributed.

But who will start the wars?

http://www.autofixinfo.com/kcIzAHoWWljDaD/Questions-for-Statists.html

TMI dude. ROFL

It's actually always a hybrid. Many of liberal states have lists of socially important goods with State controlled prices. There are also such things as antimonopoly committee etc.

"Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity".

- Deng Xiaoping in 1984

I prefer the free market, because there is still no justice lies in the trade, who's trying diligently then he will get the result. while the socialist system put forward for the average, between really tried with less trying his same position, so there is no principle of justice which is applied here, hopefully there is another system that is better than both of these systems ... 

pretty even

Yikes,

I'm far bottom left too!

Guess I'm with you in this one. To be honest, if I had a zillion dollars like these other world controllers - I would donate most of it to progressive thinking charities that do good in their communities. In fact I would probably only keep a small amount to myself so that I could live peacefully.

hayek put it this way:


people who want a planned economie become the biggest threat to the planned economie of others.


so why instead not have a more or less free economie, you just enforce property rights you have the complete authority to have socialism inside of your own system it just have to operate within the framework (constitution) thats the body within congress and president have to operate in.

so that for example exxon, general motors, schools are privatly run (without ANY government interference expect the written framework)
they couldnt have "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" which make google dropbox microsoft spying on us but instead make the illegal thing legal and deal with the new business models that develop and not have the government make corrps monopolized by enforcing rules who centralize everything by federal interference.

same with drug laws why not let the free market develop ways to deal with rap poison in drugs.

for example having something like silkroad where you know if your seller is an asshole or not and have reviews, could be the same with a store that is regulated by some company that everyone agrees that controls then nicely and they put they certificate on it so it protects the consumer.

and they run a in a competetive market so when they make shit, there will b another company runnning 1000 ads blaming them for what they have done and everyone will question them and they have to facethe consequence because there will be no goverment monopoly that will keep them im place


+

the roads thing you were talking about:

why does it contradict to have privatly run roads?   if we all pay for them, and all want them, it would be just the same.


i think like some said here: its not all black and white. you think a mix of both is the best. but i argue:

private corrps + government combined = total control (federal reserve)

I'd like to jerk off with my left hand

Giving up on you, you're dumb.

Probably not, but for some reason people around here think that people with more moderate views are deluded, stupid and just generally wrong.


It is indeed going to be interesting times.  What we are doing now is obviously not working and it seems to be about to crash down around our ears.

Stuff like this has happened before though so we have plenty of "case studies" to learn from.


It's a form of governance, it may not actually have people up the top but it fits the bill.  It usually ends up in the strongest bully taking over, but like I say, it could be different this time compared to the umpteen other times it has happened.  I just don't think so.

Yeah, that's just your opinion, that doesn't mean it's actually happened, I had originally asked for examples so all you're doing is making a statement about it and then expecting people to accept that.

Feudalism isn't about lords either, it is the state where the power of a populous goes to the landholders by default because they hold all the cards.  I think Anarchism will probably evolve along the same lines after too long.

Well maybe you need to be more clearer then and no it's not like Feudalism at all, I never said anything about Lordships lol.

Where did I say Anarchism?  I said what your talking about sounds like feudalism.

READ MY WORDS!

You claimed Anarchism does not work and has been tried, then you posted Feudalism as an example, or are you saying that's not what you meant at all?

Sort of, I think it is backwards of what you're saying.  I think society makes government, sometimes they are not happy with the results though.

It does not mean that all government has to be bad though, it just means we need to try again.  Even Anarchism is a form of governance, just one that I don't believe will work.  (Just my opinion though, the limited historical evidence we have turned out nasty).

Where did I say it was?  Anarchism has only come in with your last two posts, I never mentioned it.

You asked for a historical example of what I was saying.

Stop attributing things you think to what I say.

In Feudalism lords would give land over to people who would swear loyalty to them, that is not Anarchism, stop trying to pretend it is, nevermind the fact that the system you're describing has a completely different word associated with it which you chose to ignore as well.

No it's not.  READ the link, it is in the first paragraph.

Feudalism is not Anarchism, as I thought, people who complain about Anarchism don't even seem to know what it actually is, Feudalism is something else entirely and is based on an Aristocracy ruling over a region which completely goes against what Anarchism is.

Society did not break down, the government did.  It is a direct historical case of what was asked for, and I only quoted one example.  Many cultures have gone through the exact same thing with the exact same results, click on the links, read about them.

As to if it would happen again the tenth or whatever time around, who knows, but the odds are good.

Never heard of hyperbole?

I get you now, you should have quoted that bit .

Around about the 8-9th century governments broke down and everyone had to fend for themselves and their neighbors, a system call feudalism;-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

It lead to what we call the Dark Ages that in many ways everything went backwards (science, literature, all the good stuff);-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

It ended somewhere in the 14th to 15th century in a period called "The Renaissance" when the city states expanded back into  countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renaissance

I am surprised you dont know this stuff.

I'm not saying you should never argue, but when you argue with a guy who thinks Hitler and Free Market are analogous...

You said it has been tried and it froze human progress, surely you have actual examples of what you claim?

You lost me sorry, your argument is getting fragmented and I suspect I need to be inside your head to understand it.

You want historical examples of what?

LOL! I asked you to post some historical examples and you call me a dumbass? Genius way to avoid the question I wasn't talking about currencies either.

Your a dumbass but OK, here is a start, fix your government by taking away their ability to manipulate your currency;-

https://bitcoin.org/

Good, so am I.  Careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

....... -_-

Post some examples, but I bet you're going to inevitably end up with something that had some kind of cruel Authoritarian regime that you love so much keeping everybody in the dark ages and just don't acknowledge that they did it.

Don't you learn from history, perhaps I am not the stupid one.

It has been tried, it does not work.  Those times froze human progress for close to 600 years.

Do I really have to go through something that blatantly obvious or are you that unimaginative and stupid?

. Negotiate with farmer

. Pool money or get people to donate materials/mine it themselves

I get it, I really do.  Your government is fucked, so are your big business.

Why not fix it instead of going back to feudal times.  That was a horrible point in history, let's not go there again.

Where would you build that road?  Through whose farm?  Who will pay for it?

*facepalm*

Okay, first the machines make it possible to build machines needed for modern civilisation that can build stuff without a huge amount of cost and relying on a government, the technology of the concrete cloth means in theory you could build a road just by laying it out and spraying water on the thing depending on how it was applied.

Not getting your point, they are technologies and ideals, they are not going to build roads for you.

So, the big business option for you then?

http://opensourceecology.org/

http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs/gvcs-machine-index/#prettyPhoto

This guy just so happens to be posting open source blueprints for machines that can be built with nothing more than a welder and scrap metal.

Oh and I almost forgot about this:

http://dornob.com/just-add-water-concrete-buildings-built-with-air-h2o/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv3SII568v0

Who then?  Big business or people with picks an shovels.

Nice rebuttal.

Not everybody is a selfish or bitter asshole like you which is what I think when you make statements like that about other people.

Sure you don't need them to do it but if you seriously believe that the people will go out with picks and shovels and build them you're deluded.

What you might get is "Mega Roading Corp" that charges you $1 per kilometer to use.  We all know how big business loves looking after us after all.

Well... I dont live in the US and the roads here arent bad.

But, yeah, I am serious.  Are you serious that you would be better off without them?  How will you get around?  Pogo sticks?

You don't need to be authoritarian to build roads, that'd ridiculous, the fact that people still genuinely believe this annoys me because there's nothing preventing people from getting the equipment together and doing it themselves or pooling the money to build one.

Roads?

The less government interference the better. It really doesn't matter if you're more to the left or to the right. Nothing good comes from being authoritarian, that's a fact.

I fully agree, life isnt black and white so you need both, only when you are in a shitty position you miss some socialism..

Both?

Free market is good in some sectors, socialism in others. Mix of those is best for most, extreme of either to a few (those who have power).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-changing-my-ideology-from-socialism-to-libertarianism-what-about-you-723537 ...

Let me help you out with that OP. Here is a 4-way political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test



I score at the far bottom left, as an anarcho-socialist. I believe firmly that human beings are neuro-biologically wired for empathy, and that selfishness and competition are culturally imbued values.

If you want to see evidence for that assertion, you need only tune your TV to any American (un)"reality" show. Contrast that culture against the emotional openness of very young children or indigenous tribes.

Another member S.Boxx had brought this up before and we decided instead of Left and Right we could devide everyone up into Tentacles and Snakes. We call it Squish. The OBJECT of SQUISH is to find TENTACLES and SNAKES.  A TENTACLE is an email address used by a real person for the purpose of concealing their identity from others. A SNAKE is a TENTACLE that is particularly wicked and evil and will lie and trick others into believing the TENTACLE is real. In words, the more consequential and malicious a TENTACLE, the more it is a SNAKE.

> The TRUE NAME of a person behind a tentacle is also called the MOTHER or the MONSTER. Some of the TRUE NAMES are BIG MACS and some are SMALL FRIES.

> A MEDUSA is the leader of all SMALL FRIES and BIG MACS, a wicked, evil incarnation of SATAN on the Internet. She is the originator and chief proseletyzer of the art, science, and religion of lies. MEDUSA has dozens of SNAKES all over the Internet, particularly in extremely sensitive areas such as Internet protocol development(e.g. mercantile or digital cash protocols), posting from public access sites and even `covers' and `front' sites, these are called POISON NEEDLES. Corrupt administrators are always either BIG MACS or SMALL FRIES. Some sites have administrators who are unaware orapathetic toward infiltrations, these are called PAWNS.

> Anyone who knows about a tentacle or other CONSPIRACY, an `insider', is called TAINTED. People who don't know are called CLEAN. Some CLEAN and BYSTANDERS are particularly NAIVE and believe everything that BIG MACS and MEDUSA says, they are called BRAINWASHED. The ones that defend BIG MACS and MEDUSA are called BLIND. Those that simply don't care are called BRAIN DEAD.

> When MEDUSA infiltrates many sites and spews extremely dangerous disinformation and propaganda, this is called SABOTAGE. Telling people to go somewhere else and dominating conversations with irrelevant topics is called STRANGLING or GANG RAPE. Stealing sensitive information from others is called ESPIONAGE. Sabotage, strangling, espionage, and other types of cyberterrorism are called POISON. MEDUSA hides her activities beneath the various phrases PRIVACY FOR THE MASSES, the CRYPTOGRAPHIC REVOLUTION, and CRYPTOANARCHY in respectable media outlets like Wired and the New York Times. Sometimes this is accomplished by fooling reporters, but note that not all reporters are CLEAN, and bribery may be possible.

> MEDUSA is the orchestrator of a MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY to STRANGLE, SABOTAGE, and POISON THE INTERNET. Anyone who can drive MEDUSA and all the corrupt BIG MACS from Cyberspace and from the real world forever is called THE SAVIOR and said to have DRIVEN THE PHARISEES FROM THE TEMPLE.

Probably best to post in politics section but yeah its a lot more complicated then just left or right.  Most people here would favour a free market style i should think but you could break that up into hundreds of different types of systems alone.

Personally i like to see resources distributed without money but wont happen in my lifetime. 

Left and right is an attempt by people in power to pigeon hole everybody into convenient, easy to control and manage categories.

You're right, the poll is lacking some middle ground there - but I wouldn't really go as far as equating Soviet Russia to socialism, despite all the propaganda to that effect. The basic idea behind socialism, as far as I know, is worker control of the means of production; something they had none of, in Russia at that time. I suppose you could have called it a form of state socialism instead, or something, but it seems to me to have been just another excuse for a totalitarian state, and not much of a representation of socialism.

Leftie and rightie is more effectively used as a description for the curvature of a penis than as an accurate description of political viewpoint. What you have on this forum are usually anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian anarchists, libertarians, argumentative religious fundamentalist conservatives here to cause trouble and MoonShadow who defies classification.

How about a choice of:

1) more government
2) less government

Doesn't really matter if the government is left, right or centrist.

this poll is already slanted.. who's really going to choose "socialist" with its negative connotations, especially when the other option is "free market"? no one. besides that, capitalism isn't perfect. in fact, the basic tenets of socialism = use up every resource for as much short-term profits as possible. i am neither a socialist nor a capitalist.

I don't know why there's a difference. You are always completely free as long as you do exactly what the government tells you to do and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You might want to put some middle ground in there, at the moment you could interperate it as;-

Who do you prefer;-

A. Joseph Stalin

B. Adolf Hitler

i want to know if there are any here?