Topic: what is your political preference? - page 4. (Read 4605 times)
Slavery is already a violation of the NAP and inherent human right not to be enslaved, so would-be slavers should surrender or be killed in self-defense. No laws codifying what is inherent are necessary, without a government existing to violate (or enable the violation of) those rights in the first place.
Anarcho-capitalism[/b] -- even worse than the Libertarians. At least the Libertarians/"Minarchists"/whatever seem to acknowledge there might be some need for a smallish government that would to initate violence against innocent people to attempt to restore order, just in case any of their voluntarist/private arbitration/NAP non-innitation of violence against innocent people theories didn't go according to plan.
i suppose its possible that it might end badly. still im willing to give it a shot. when societies outlawed slavery there was a risk that it could have ended badly, does that mean they shouldnt have tried? plus we dont want the entire world to test this out on, we are perfectly fine to just be left in peace on a few square miles of land somewhere. if cannibalistic death cults pop up somewhere on our few square miles and we dont find any way to solve that problem than feel free to invade us.
Careful! Without professional minders with armys, you are sure to end up with "weird cult communities pop-up where they do ritual sacrifices/rape/molestation/whatever to prevent crop failure"
The irony is that this is actually a pretty decent description of the western elites
I'd like to see an "evolve" poll. Like, if you are an Anarcho-Capitalist, or a Libertarian, or a Democrat/Republican, were you always like that, or did you "evolve" from a prior political affiliation? Mostly, though, I'm curious if libertarian types came from the big R or the big D.
I started coin collecting at 6. I think I was 8 when I declared my room a sovereign state. I was born this way (independent/other). Mark me unevolved.
There isn't a party platform that I agree with sufficiently to support the nonsense that gets bundled in.
Anarcho-capitalism[/b] -- even worse than the Libertarians. At least the Libertarians/"Minarchists"/whatever seem to acknowledge there might be some need for a smallish government that would to initate violence against innocent people to attempt to restore order, just in case any of their voluntarist/private arbitration/NAP non-innitation of violence against innocent people theories didn't go according to plan.
i suppose its possible that it might end badly. still im willing to give it a shot. when societies outlawed slavery there was a risk that it could have ended badly, does that mean they shouldnt have tried? plus we dont want the entire world to test this out on, we are perfectly fine to just be left in peace on a few square miles of land somewhere. if cannibalistic death cults pop up somewhere on our few square miles and we dont find any way to solve that problem than feel free to invade us.
Careful! Without professional minders with armys, you are sure to end up with "weird cult communities pop-up where they do ritual sacrifices/rape/molestation/whatever to prevent crop failure"
Aggression against whom?
In the absence of any objective standard for crime, what's innocence?
In the absence of any objective standard for crime, what's innocence?
Aggression against any human being that didn't initiate agression (or equal to human in their ability to trade and sign contracts, e.g. robots, aliens, genetically modified super-smart animals, etc. but NOT ordinary animals, vegetables, mushrooms, bacteria or inanimate objects).
Explain how this is settled in the real world, and then explain why that couldn't be done privately.
My preference would probably be a mix of socialism and capitalism, with socialism prevailing. Our Governments are too interested in money and aren't interested enough in people.
My evolution: right wing (because parents) --> minarchist (after discovering that the political division into "left" and "right" is laughably fail) --> anarchist (after discovering minarchism to be internally inconsistent)
I won't call myself an an-cap or any other sort of anarchist, since I suppose that the concept of anarchy implies the possibility of several different approaches coexisting. I support all of them as long as they're free from coercion, because I think that one of the biggest problems in politics is the desire to develop one perfect system suitable for everybody. Yes unity is strenght, but remember, that's a fascist motto. I'm interested in stability through diversity. That's how nature does it.
Nowadays I'm just happy participating in political discussions and mostly focus on the language people are using. Language creates reality (read Korzibsky) and exposes hidden assumptions, where people confuse the map with the territory. I find that most people are hopelessly awash in faulty either/or thinking, delusions of omniscience (knowing for sure what would happen if...), misrepresenting other viewpoints (like the poster in this thread going for the old "without law we would be all just killing each other" argument while talking to a proponent of the non-agression principle) and just plain old brainwashing. I admit that since most people (including self proclaimed anarchists) subscribe to some sort of dogma or other, it makes having an intelligent discussion hard and often impossible.
All in all my political stance can be summed up as: I wish people would stop acting like they know what's best for everybody, how to get it and trying to force everybody to cooperate at gunpoint. The rest is details.
I won't call myself an an-cap or any other sort of anarchist, since I suppose that the concept of anarchy implies the possibility of several different approaches coexisting. I support all of them as long as they're free from coercion, because I think that one of the biggest problems in politics is the desire to develop one perfect system suitable for everybody. Yes unity is strenght, but remember, that's a fascist motto. I'm interested in stability through diversity. That's how nature does it.
Nowadays I'm just happy participating in political discussions and mostly focus on the language people are using. Language creates reality (read Korzibsky) and exposes hidden assumptions, where people confuse the map with the territory. I find that most people are hopelessly awash in faulty either/or thinking, delusions of omniscience (knowing for sure what would happen if...), misrepresenting other viewpoints (like the poster in this thread going for the old "without law we would be all just killing each other" argument while talking to a proponent of the non-agression principle) and just plain old brainwashing. I admit that since most people (including self proclaimed anarchists) subscribe to some sort of dogma or other, it makes having an intelligent discussion hard and often impossible.
All in all my political stance can be summed up as: I wish people would stop acting like they know what's best for everybody, how to get it and trying to force everybody to cooperate at gunpoint. The rest is details.
Agorist, but libertarian/minarchist if required to participate in the political process.
Quote
Agorists generally oppose voting for political candidates and political reform. Instead, agorists stress the importance of alternative strategies rather than politics to achieve a free society. Agorists claim that we can achieve a free society more easily and sooner by employing such alternative methods as education, direct action, alternative currencies, entrepreneurship, self sufficiency, and most importantly "counter-economics".
Aggression against whom?
In the absence of any objective standard for crime, what's innocence?
In the absence of any objective standard for crime, what's innocence?
Aggression against any human being that didn't initiate agression (or equal to human in their ability to trade and sign contracts, e.g. robots, aliens, genetically modified super-smart animals, etc. but NOT ordinary animals, vegetables, mushrooms, bacteria or inanimate objects).
Innocence is a state of not having aggressed against anyone.
It works like this: there is a universally agreed implicit non-agression contract. Any persons are born innocent, so they are implicitly signing this contract upon their birth. As soon as a person initiates aggression, they quit the implied non-aggression contract, thereby agreeing to others commiting violence against them (fighting back). Whether the act of aggression actually took place is up to judges/insurance companies to decide.
I suggest you read Rothbard or something...
Fine, I'll answer it myself: without laws, the word 'innocence' has no meaning. At least modern societies aspire to a "presumption of innocence". Failing that, there's "harm minimisation" (e.g.: various restrictions like time limits on arrests and formal procedures to follow) in the middle and a "fair trial" (a conservative ritual that has withstood centuries of scrutiny) at the end if it gets to that.
All of that can be thrown out on the whim of the populace being governed, if the majority of the population decides to not follow those laws. So all of that is only in place because the majority of the populace has certain beliefs about "innocence" and "fair trial" with due process.
So, why can't the society, where the majority believes in those same things already, just follow those beliefs as general guidelines? Why would a society that believes "innocent until proven guilty" and "everyone should have a right to a due process" instantly turn into lynch mobs if the government says "That trial thing, you're on your own?" Better yet, how well did the laws and "fair trial" requirements prevent lynch mobs down in the south a hundred years ago, where the majority didn't care about them?
the courts/judges and juries today are kangaroo courts, juries are groomed to do what the prosecutors and judges tell them to do, not what is 'right'
E.g.: weird cult communities pop-up where they do ritual sacrifices/rape/molestation/whatever to prevent crop failure? Does the community voluntarily believe that shit? Yes? Libertarians: "not OK. Let's 'voluntary arbitration' that shit". An-Caps: "totally legit". Tough choice!
Please stop misrepresenting us. Obviously we are not for aggression against innocents. It is the initiation of force, something you have admitted statists are happy to do.
[/quote]
Aggression against whom?
[/quote]
I would guess whoever it is that is initiating force against victims and is sacrificing/raping/molesting them? As far as I understand it, that whole NAP thing means "initiating violence against anyone else" is taboo, not just against you, so I suspect defending someone who is very obviously being aggressed against is ok too?
i have no interest in politics as it is corrupt by its nature
the closest i have found that i am comfortable with entertaining is
the closest i have found that i am comfortable with entertaining is
Quote
Autarchism (from Greek, "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty, rejects compulsory government, and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek, "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is called autarchy (from Greek αὐταρχία autarchia, "state of self rule").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism In the absence of any objective standard for crime, what's innocence?
The objective standard is the initiation of force.
Anarcho-capitalism[/b] -- even worse than the Libertarians. At least the Libertarians/"Minarchists"/whatever seem to acknowledge there might be some need for a smallish government that would attempt to restore order, just in case any of their voluntarist/private arbitration/NAP theories didn't go according to plan. E.g.: weird cult communities pop-up where they do ritual sacrifices/rape/molestation/whatever to prevent crop failure? Does the community voluntarily believe that shit? Yes? Libertarians: "not OK. Let's 'voluntary arbitration' that shit". An-Caps: "totally legit". Tough choice!
Please stop misrepresenting us. Obviously we are not for aggression against innocents. It is the initiation of force, something you have admitted statists are happy to do.
I'd like to see an "evolve" poll. Like, if you are an Anarcho-Capitalist, or a Libertarian, or a Democrat/Republican, were you always like that, or did you "evolve" from a prior political affiliation? Mostly, though, I'm curious if libertarian types came from the big R or the big D.
Evolved. Either my political beliefs during Bush Sr. & Clinton were forgotten with most of the rest of my childhood, or I didn't really have an awakening until the 2000 election/when The West Wing was running. From day one I plainly saw Bush Jr. and Cheney as evil pieces of fucking shit, and Al Gore probably less so, so as a reaction, I was "liberal" or "moderate" around the start (but was Independent/DTS). Then evolved to supporting Ron Paul and registering as Republican only to be able to vote for him and like candidates in primaries, as both major parties seemed to mostly select evil pieces of fucking shit.
But I switched to Libertarian after the 2012 general election, having heard about violence perpetrated by the criminal wing of the Republican party against the libertarian wing at their caucuses/conventions. Last voted for Gary Johnson, the lesser of all the evils who was seeking to become the supreme, 100% immune from any prosecution, ruler of the world.
Who knows if the Republican leadership will see an exodus of party registrations from their own to the LP... not that it matters, since there's so much fucking election fraud the criminal government will never prosecute itself for.
I would imagine we would all change our ideologies as the forces around us change. Not that our ideology itself is changing but the relativity would be different.
I would imagine that if jews in prison camps during WWII were given a political quiz they would most likely return results leaning very libertarian and anarchist, basically not liking government one bit. I doubt any jews walking to the gas chambers were complaining about whether the 10 Commandments should be displayed in a school or not.
I believe that those that prefer smaller government would probably agree with each other to varying degrees of smaller government.
If we were to work toward getting the government to fit inside the confines of the Constitution it is something many people would be willing to work toward. But if that did happen, then there would be some people who are satisfied with it and others who think it is a good start and would want to start picking away at the worst parts of the Constitution such as the 16th Amendment and 17th. Once those were gone many would be satisfied but still others may believe that it is still too much while others are even dissatisfied with the Constitution in the first place.
The same probably goes for those who prefer more government. Many may be satisfied with socialism while others would want more and more control over their lives and move toward communism and fascism and beyond to total slavery to the state before they are truly happy.
I would imagine that if jews in prison camps during WWII were given a political quiz they would most likely return results leaning very libertarian and anarchist, basically not liking government one bit. I doubt any jews walking to the gas chambers were complaining about whether the 10 Commandments should be displayed in a school or not.
I believe that those that prefer smaller government would probably agree with each other to varying degrees of smaller government.
If we were to work toward getting the government to fit inside the confines of the Constitution it is something many people would be willing to work toward. But if that did happen, then there would be some people who are satisfied with it and others who think it is a good start and would want to start picking away at the worst parts of the Constitution such as the 16th Amendment and 17th. Once those were gone many would be satisfied but still others may believe that it is still too much while others are even dissatisfied with the Constitution in the first place.
The same probably goes for those who prefer more government. Many may be satisfied with socialism while others would want more and more control over their lives and move toward communism and fascism and beyond to total slavery to the state before they are truly happy.
Anarcho-capitalism[/b] -- even worse than the Libertarians. At least the Libertarians/"Minarchists"/whatever seem to acknowledge there might be some need for a smallish government that would to initate violence against innocent people to attempt to restore order, just in case any of their voluntarist/private arbitration/NAP non-innitation of violence against innocent people theories didn't go according to plan.
i suppose its possible that it might end badly. still im willing to give it a shot. when societies outlawed slavery there was a risk that it could have ended badly, does that mean they shouldnt have tried? plus we dont want the entire world to test this out on, we are perfectly fine to just be left in peace on a few square miles of land somewhere. if cannibalistic death cults pop up somewhere on our few square miles and we dont find any way to solve that problem than feel free to invade us.
Help me here. Let's say I'd like to live in a society that can be best described as communist. However, I require all my adult comrads to be there of their free will, absolutely without State coercion of any kind. Does this make me a communist or an anarchist?
Check out Anarcho-syndicalism.
Also: Anarchist-Communism
Help me here. Let's say I'd like to live in a society that can be best described as communist. However, I require all my adult comrads to be there of their free will, absolutely without State coercion of any kind. Does this make me a communist or an anarchist?
How big do you imagine your community to be? I see no reason if for example a small group of people decide to get together and live in a certain way as a community. If you are talking about millions of people though, seems a lot less likely you will get consent.
Jump to: