Topic: [POLL] How would you describe yourself politically? - page 2. (Read 5902 times)

I've argued about this in several threads and I'm not about to ruin another by bothering to respond to a sarcastic government loyalist.

We're in between and we'll settle for an extremely limited government but having it removed entirely would be awesome, I suppose at least for me you could consider me a diplomatic-anarchist as well so if you ever negotiate a power agreement with me I'm going to whittle you down to almost nothing.

Anyone ever wondered how the Nazis could be fascists when they were called the National Socialists?

Then what do libertarian anarchists want? lol

Of course not. My toothbrush isn't valuable to anyone else. My factory and my mines would be, so it makes sense others would want to steal those.



Thats the problem here. If someone "needed" to use my toothbrush, or my house (remember quartering soldiers?) or my factory, that doesn't give them the right to just take it. That's called stealing. You should contract with the actual owners of property, because doing otherwise requires violence or threats of violence, creates conflict, and is immoral.



Anarchy isn't supposed to avoid hierarchies or inequality. Those are inevitable, communistic protestations not withstanding.

What anarchy is supposed to avoid is one person pretending to have legitimate authority over another, when they really don't, and using that illegitimate position to do things like steal land and factories.

I personally see myself as more of a liberal (the progressive kind),although my main concerns centre around equality/human rights/fairness to all people as well as being environmentally responsible (whenever I can,as I can't expect to do that 100% as that's not realistic). What's the difference between a liberal and a socialist as I'm confused?Thanks

Edit:Needed to add something extra

That seems a standard view for a Socialist (state control of the means of production)  Personal property right should not extend to production. Of course it begs the question, who would risk trying to make a factory or improving a product if there was not the possibility of becoming rich?

To answer that, you must look to either countries that have large closed factories with nobody working them, or you can look further back in history to see that forced labor has it's advantages as well as gigantic moral disadvantages.

The belief that one rich person should not have control of the lives of thousands of workers, the ability to destroy the environment (either intentionally or unintentionally) are easy to arrive at, it makes sense. But it only makes perfect sense if you have no will to become massively rich off of innovation or improvement and thereby open a factory to employ hundreds or thousands of people. 

In my opinion, the Socialist view necessitates a retrenchment of living standards for all, except in very homogeneous countries with shared moral views that are resistant to change, it might have a shot there.

Soviet bloc cars during communism were universally crap, you can be bigoted and blame it on the workers because of their country, or you can blame it on the system that fathered them. I choose the latter.

I think there is a major distinction between Anarchists and Libertarians, Anarchists don't want a government. Libertarians want to extremely limit theirs.

It still is.

Libertarian Socialism originally was just another word for anarchist.

That seems about right, but your last sentence is a bit of a generalisation. There are many different schools of thought regarding Libertarianism (which is an incredibly broad word anyway). Also Americans/the media propaganda machine seem to tend to pervert what the definitions of political stances are. Like the media goes on about Socialism as if it's akin to fascism or something and that Socialists just want to give all your money to the poor etc.

Check out Chomsky on 'Libertarianism' and its perverse American definition of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE



Did they? I think you should maybe do some more research on that or delve a little deeper. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/


That's why most religious people are hypocrites and make up their own rules to play by.


I think there is only one 'technical fact' about god. How do you or anybody keep in touch with what god wants you or us to do?


Sounds like an abusive relationship.

I've thought about this matter before; the conclusion I came to was, land used to hold one's personal property--including one's home and backyard--constitute as personal land i.e. private property, whilst land used to work, i.e. factories and offices, where people commonly visit to perform their duties, should not constitute as private property.  Although people can agree that this land can have an owner and this ownership should not be violated, i.e. voluntary hierarchy, I think people would sooner opt to share these areas amongst anyone who fulfills the condition that the person actually contribute their time and energy there, discarding the chance of becoming super-rich for the benefit of everyone becoming somewhat wealthier as per hierarchy, as I believe the amount of people in this world who truly pine for such power are a minority.

I believe the confusion stems from the notion that there being no private property means people can never truly have a place to call home, which at first glance appears impossible and unrealistic (i.e. "utopian".)  But after all, wisdom is largely a game of semantics.

Yeah, it seems like an Orwellian world we live in, once you start reading about how the NSA took down silkroad, you realize they have the power to take over your computer, and the will to take over your computer, so long as you do something they don't like (not that I am into most of the stuff on that site) With snowden revealing that massive amounts of personal e-mails are collected, it seems the only thing left is for them to classify Terrorism as being non-conformist since they can, pretty much do anything they want without a warrant so long as they consider you a terrorist see https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

Oh wait, they did define those they suspect as terrorist with exactly the same things that describe preppers http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-fbi-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter

and then they labeled a christian group as a hate group http://patdollard.com/2013/10/army-halts-training-program-that-labeled-christians-as-terrorists/


So, as a Christian prepper, of course I think that we are living in an Orwellian state.

Would you think I was paranoid if I thought NSA agents monitor this site?

Just to be clear, and to others who might read this, we're not talking about personal property here; no one wants your toothbrush.

The problem, as far as I see it, is that it isn't just you and your buddy voluntarily agreeing on payment for a job: if you allow private property, say land ownership or of a factory for example, then those who need to make use of the land or the resources produced need to enter into contract with the owners. If they have have no other choice in the matter, this leads to inequality, or hierarchies, which is exactly what anarchy is supposed to avoid.

I'm liking your portrayal here. What I'm taking away is:

- the definition changed over time (but the actual word still means the same thing, except when applied to politics)
- new definition is in many ways opposite to the old one
- new definition is conflated with the other so-called "left" ideology: socialism (with a totalitarian twist in some areas)

It's a pretty Orwellian depiction really, because what passes for Liberal now is not in any way liberal, and not really too progressive either. I've said it in other threads: don't identify to closely with the labels, or one day you'll suddenly find the meaning of the label got changed.

As Far as Ethics go, that is where I lean conservative (not politically, but in personal life) If you read enough source documents from the early American years, you will find that the "Founding Fathers" believed very strongly that we must have a moral society based on a belief in a God that will judge their actions.

Now we don't have so much of that anymore, people want to say they are religious, but don't actually believe their own Holy Book really is the truth... that leaves people to have to split their social and religious views into a contradictory position (see Bill O'Rielly and his book "Killing Jesus")

I wonder how people can say that they don't believe the book of Genesis is a lie, can still say that Evolution happened, but since that seems to be the majority opinion, obviously they are Ok with that glaring contradiction, or can read the Old Testament and then claim that God wouldn't discriminate.

It's kinda like saying you are a buddhist/christian

Anyhow, personally, I believe in an All-Powerful God who will judge everyone, has His own opinions (what I call Righteousness) and expectations of us. I may not know a whole big bunch of technical facts about God, but I do know that.

So, that means I have to keep in touch with what He wants for me, and I think others should as well (I honestly wouldn't want the most powerful being in the Universe being mad at you either)

But, if you just decided that there is no God, then there are no standard, and no system of government can provide freedom or equality, because it will simply go back to being wholly about "looking out for #1" and therefore without political power or wealth to purchase it, your gonna get shafted.

Ok, well, many years ago, Liberal was synonymous with what Libertarians believe now, which is personal, social freedom, extremely low taxation, shackles on the government with most things out-of-bounds for them, only specific things were allowed to be in their purview, moral questions were left up to citizens. Libertarians believe that with less law, everyone is better off, because we can provide for our community, family, friends, even the world, as long as the government just doesn't get in the way.

Nowadays (at least in the US) Liberal now means Progressive: the earmarks of which are non-enforcement of social or religious based laws (not repeal thereof) anti-capitalist stances such as heavy taxation or regulation of the rich, every manner and scope of government programmes such as; food for the poor, cell phones for the poor, pensions for those in the public service,  reduced price housing for the poor , lower electricity prices for the poor, better loan rates for the poor (or "disadvantaged")
As well as forced unionization, or any program that increases the scope, power or enforcement mechanism of the state, increased regulation of any business, endeavor, or anything really.

So: If a person was up on trial for dealing marijuana:
 A Liberal would say that the judge should let him off, or remand him to a government sponsored detox facility.
 A Libertarian would say, This is wrong, there is no reason that he should be on trial in the first place, we need to allow people to make out own choices of what to put in our body.

Basically the Liberal is very similar to a Marxist be default, although many of them would disagree until they read Marx.
A Libertarian would generally agree with Ayn Rand.

<- Mr. Republitarian

Because to people like him wanting to hold onto your stuff is 'hoarding' and should be punished