Anarcho-capitalism aka voluntaryism.
No compromises. "A little bit of theft" is still immoral. No voting. 99 people have no right to decide what one person should do / for what one should pay.
Topic: Political Standing (yours) (Read 2367 times)
Individual.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
its so beautiful... and ugly... and beautiful. The physical manifestation of anarchy. That picture fills me with so many emotions.
Any information on whether or not the Triads did any racketeering, or were they just concerned with their drugs and sex?
Sorry im not any sort of an expert, i just think its fascinating. I can also assume it must not have been that bad of a place to live or people wouldnt have bothered to build so far up into the sky, they would have instead chosen the much cheaper option of building out.
Yeah, it looks like most of the violent crime was between members of the triads, not to the public.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
its so beautiful... and ugly... and beautiful. The physical manifestation of anarchy. That picture fills me with so many emotions.
Any information on whether or not the Triads did any racketeering, or were they just concerned with their drugs and sex?
Sorry im not any sort of an expert, i just think its fascinating. I can also assume it must not have been that bad of a place to live or people wouldnt have bothered to build so far up into the sky, they would have instead chosen the much cheaper option of building out.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
its so beautiful... and ugly... and beautiful. The physical manifestation of anarchy. That picture fills me with so many emotions.
Any information on whether or not the Triads did any racketeering, or were they just concerned with their drugs and sex?
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
its so beautiful... and ugly... and beautiful. The physical manifestation of anarchy. That picture fills me with so many emotions.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand.
hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia.
For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?
Libertarian socialist, though I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. I do think there should be a social safety net, but it shouldn't cost too much or be too comfortable for the lazy. I have to admit to voting mostly for Democrats, even though they are increasingly disgusting.
I think philosophy may be more useful an indicator than politics, because politics, at least in America, is absolutely fucked right now. I'm a preference utilitarian in the mold of Jeremy Bentham or, more recently, Peter Singer. The best social policies are those which leave people alone as much as possible, so that they can satisfy their personal preferences. It shouldn't be up to the state to decide what preferences are "good" or to make moral decisions or protect people from themselves.
So, for instance, if a drug addict wants to shoot smack until he dies, he should be allowed to do so, though it might be useful for society to offer some kind of voluntary rehab at no or low cost, because losing a potentially useful person is inefficient. Spending enormous amounts of money to throw such people in prison is completely useless.
Similarly, qualified people should get no or low cost education, at least in something useful, because that's efficient. Even if 9 out of 10 people go on to some undistinguished work in a field like math or science, it's a total waste for a potential Einstein to end up as a pizza delivery guy for lack of education at the right time. The kind of discoveries scientists and engineers make justify spending other people's money to make sure we don't waste an Einstein.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
I think philosophy may be more useful an indicator than politics, because politics, at least in America, is absolutely fucked right now. I'm a preference utilitarian in the mold of Jeremy Bentham or, more recently, Peter Singer. The best social policies are those which leave people alone as much as possible, so that they can satisfy their personal preferences. It shouldn't be up to the state to decide what preferences are "good" or to make moral decisions or protect people from themselves.
So, for instance, if a drug addict wants to shoot smack until he dies, he should be allowed to do so, though it might be useful for society to offer some kind of voluntary rehab at no or low cost, because losing a potentially useful person is inefficient. Spending enormous amounts of money to throw such people in prison is completely useless.
Similarly, qualified people should get no or low cost education, at least in something useful, because that's efficient. Even if 9 out of 10 people go on to some undistinguished work in a field like math or science, it's a total waste for a potential Einstein to end up as a pizza delivery guy for lack of education at the right time. The kind of discoveries scientists and engineers make justify spending other people's money to make sure we don't waste an Einstein.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
How do Bitcoin fit in that view?
Fascism appeals to me more than any thing else.
my standing is that zionism is anything but helpful ... to say the least.
Libertarian, in the anarcho-capitalist sense of the word.
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
How do Bitcoin fit in that view?
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
Also left-right is relative to country. From European viewpoint USA seems to be right-far right on the scale.
More exact labels would be good, but in some ways they might be rather far from real politics and misunderstood.
More exact labels would be good, but in some ways they might be rather far from real politics and misunderstood.
The only real politics are the politics that take place outside the farm.
Jump to: