Pages:
Author

Topic: Your Political Perspective? (Read 7571 times)

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 252
youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin
June 24, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
#71
ZombieRothbard, what a great name!   Cheesy

Yeah, I picked "Anarcho-Capitalist", although honestly Rothbard himself coined that term with tounge-in-cheek, since a free-market voluntary society based on peer-to-peer legal structures with private courts and police isn't really what is historically understood to be "Capitalist" nor "Anarchist".
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
100%
June 24, 2011, 06:59:31 AM
#70
Yay! I'm on the winning team Smiley
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 22, 2011, 06:47:35 PM
#69
It may be possible to get rid of money if technology advances far enough, but I doubt it. Mises and the problems of economic calculation have convinced me.

Star Trek was fictitious.

So was From the Earth to the Moon.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1004
June 22, 2011, 06:39:18 PM
#68
It may be possible to get rid of money if technology advances far enough, but I doubt it. Mises and the problems of economic calculation have convinced me.

Star Trek was fictitious.
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
June 22, 2011, 06:22:06 PM
#67
The price system is one of the most important features of an economy, and without it the economy ceases to exist. Soviet Russia didn't have a price system, and they basically just borrowed prices from neighboring capitalist conuntries, and that still didn't keep them from wasting tons of resources and not being able to deliver others. Money and prices are an information exchange, you simply can't get rid of them.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
June 22, 2011, 01:22:54 AM
#66
I picked "classical liberal" assuming that you meant a Jeffersonian believer in limited government (which is not the same thing as no government) and broad support for civil and human rights.  In other words, I don't really have a political home in America these days.

I was interested in Bitcoin as an experiment in non-centrally-controlled digital currency that allows secure, private transactions between individuals across the Internet, just as physical money does between individuals who meet in the physical world.  The current online payment solutions are unsatisfactory, especially to somebody who is considering running a small online business.  Most of them charge too much and provide too little security.  So I guess Bitcoin hasn't affected my politics at all, but it's early days yet. :-)
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
June 22, 2011, 01:09:04 AM
#65
It may be possible to get rid of money if technology advances far enough, but I doubt it. Mises and the problems of economic calculation have convinced me.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 19, 2011, 09:36:32 PM
#64
Just take the chicken, and later let someone take something they want.

You're really advocating a return to barter?

There's a reason a medium of exchange was created.
sr. member
Activity: 316
Merit: 250
June 19, 2011, 09:01:18 PM
#63
Just take the chicken, and later let someone take something they want. That sounds strange and improbable now because it rarely happens, but if it happened all the time then it would continue happening.

But more importantly, because wearable mind reading technology is being sold retail now (which only reads simple thoughts like directions and emotions, Emotiv Epoc for example), and that will continue advancing, a network of people who communicate through their thoughts can organize themselves better than a number can. Money is just a number.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 19, 2011, 08:34:24 PM
#62
No government. No money. No forced labor. No licenses or registrations.

Yes, no, yes, yes.

Money is kinda required, because it's really hard to figure the change back from a Chicken.
sr. member
Activity: 316
Merit: 250
June 19, 2011, 08:24:45 PM
#61
My answer:
Society should be completely decentralized. No government. No money. No forced labor. No licenses or registrations. What will hold it together is peer-to-peer networks and similar organizations in person and through other technology. A big change would have to happen in how people think society should be organized, so they don't just try to form more hierarchies. Somebody has to protect the nukes, right? No, get rid of them.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
June 18, 2011, 12:15:45 AM
#60
I think the government mostly responds to the people.

If the people say kill and harass people browner than you....

...well it'd be sorta hard to argue with that now wouldn't it?
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
firstbits: 1kwc1p
June 16, 2011, 07:37:24 AM
#59
I'm a moderate classical liberal.

I have sympathies with libertarianism and objectivism, but I wouldn't say I have some of the more extreme viewpoints to push me to become an anarcho-capitalist. I do like the core tenets of voluntarism, and try to live that way myself.

I have an innate distrust of government and multinational corporations alike, and tend to trust only those which have demonstrably shown to be worthy of my trust. I believe the free market is a bit like Linux, it's great as long as you're intelligent enough to use all of its mechanisms (including charity and boycott) and not rely on government regulation, but most people have been brainwashed into thinking the answer is always more government, and it is this brainwashing which we need to undo.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 15, 2011, 12:54:37 PM
#58
We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.
Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.
Someone should tell that to the government, then, 'cause they sure as hell are trying.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
June 15, 2011, 12:11:43 PM
#57
We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.
Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 15, 2011, 11:24:09 AM
#56
We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
June 15, 2011, 11:21:31 AM
#55
The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:
https://moviereviewh2one2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/abu-ghraib-tm.jpg
We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
June 15, 2011, 11:08:34 AM
#54
whats a pic ?
picnic in Guantanamo bay ?

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism.

Authoritarian? Check.
Nationalistic? Check.
Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though.
Socially interventionist? Check.
Militaristic? Check.
Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.)

5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy.

thats why so many dances about "Fascism" definition.
acccording to some, its common euphemerism to to social-wide crimes against humanity.
against to rest[including Hitler himself], Fascism is branch is national-socialism. under exactly same red flag and under fame "Manifesto" of Marx and Feder.
who is right isn't matter. matter is lesson, learnt from WWII.
if someone had any, in which im doubt more and more, reading.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
June 15, 2011, 11:07:51 AM
#53
The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:


+1
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
June 15, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
#52
The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:
Pages:
Jump to: