I must warn you I shall be ranting here. Frankly I don't give a damn for the state or any political system. Politicians preach to us about truth and justice but they tend to be the worst of any humans. Some of our most 'beloved' political figures such as Nelson Mandela were no better than terrorists, but pass themselves off as 'freedom fighters', yet people say that Islamic militants are terrorists, not 'freedom fighters'. It just makes me sick. I guess I would loosely call myself an Individualist Anarchist but there are some things within that I don't agree with either. Anyone care to differ?
It's all silly business, none of it really matters.
Just take it in stride like I do. Everybody needs policies for any given moment, best to keep your policies flexible and ready to change to "benefit" yourself "optimally" for any given situation. As if any of your politics will make you a better or happier person.
Absolutely, but despise is the wrong word.
I just find it silly and occasionally infuriating.
We're all best not taking up any ideology.
It comprises the mind and makes a man's opinions, actions and motivations untrustworthy, if not predictable.
> I would loosely call myself an Individualist Anarchist
Labelling yourself something (anything) is a key part of ideology.
Don't fall into the trap.
There are retarded ideals like anarchism (you're a faggot), but there are also things worth fighting for like liberty. You can whine cry pussy juices from your tear ducts like a little bitch all you want but you'd have a very different opinion after if you could spend a year living under a tyranny or an actual anarchy like Somalia.
> liberty
This word long ago lost all meaning when sole ownership was claimed by competing ideologies and used as justification for every crime imaginable.
> anarchism
is an ideology
after drifting around from socialist everyone's entitled to the things listed in the UDHR to libertarian raaargh property rights i've come to decide that things like rights and liberties extend to whatever the hell you can force them to extend to and as principles aren't worth a whole lot.
i'm not actively bothered by poltics, and i'm okay with government as long as i can make out a decent living and they keep the surveillance to unobtrusive levels.
>>6
>>7
Except the only instances where people have agreed that a crime was done in the name of liberty has been when a gun is pointing at their heads because liberty has a logical definition and cannot be misunderstood. People gleefully murder and execute in the name of religions and ideals such as anarchism, socialism and islam without any coercion or provocation whatsoever, which is why they are dangerous. The biggest example being the holocaust by national socialists despite the strain on vital war resources this entailed.
Anarchists want liberty
Socialists want their own idea of liberty
Islamists want liberty from aggressive American interests.
National socialists wanted the liberty of a standing army, self-determination, not being terrorized by communist militias, taking back what they felt was theirs.
> a logical definition and cannot be misunderstood.
In a dictionary, but not in public consciousness.
> only instances where people have agreed that a crime was done in the name of liberty has been when a gun is pointing at their heads
The one holding the gun would disagree.
Left:
Women should have the liberty to choose what to do with their bodies.
Right:
A baby should have the liberty to a chance at life.
Left:
I should have the liberty to freedom of/from religion.
Right:
I should have the liberty to proselytize to people like my religion requires.
Left:
Those people should have the liberty to not be murdered.
Right:
We should have the liberty to not be murdered by those people.
Meaningless.
>Anarchists want liberty to varying degrees depending on which branch you're talking about.
>Socialists want equality for everyone at the expense of "economic freedoms".
>Islamists want religion and state combined.
>National socialists killed a lot of innocent people.
I think ideologies arise in times of adversity, when masses of people need something to adhere them together when facing a great difficulty, political, social, environmental, or otherwise. They certainly have their use, but if you are raised to be jaded and politically apathetic in a glorious time of peace and excess, you should rejoice and take advantage of your upbringing's relative lack of adversity.
I think there's some old Chinese saying about History and never wishing anyone to appear in it, or something like that, but I forget.
> glorious time of peace and excess
Was there ever a time like this?
I myself am not politically apathetic, just anti-dogmatic. Maybe a bit of a cynic, too.
Because I'd prefer that when I vote I make the best decision, I try not to let prejudice of idea or party cloud my judgement.
>>9
>>8 here.
All you are saying is that people are using different concepts and call it liberty, not that the actual definition of liberty is a flawed concept. People who take the actual definition of liberty to it's logical conclusion are members of neither the left or the right.
Left:
An 9 month old fetus is not sapient.
Right:
A fertilised ovum is sapient.
Truth:
Significant neural activity begins when a fetus is 20 weeks old.
Left:
I should have the liberty to restrict freedom of speech of religions I don't like.
Right:
I should have the liberty to harass people in the name of my religion.
Truth:
A person should be able to prove a person's actions cause them distress before restricting contact with them.
Left:
Those people should have the liberty to not be murdered.
Right:
We should have the liberty to not be murdered by those people
Truth:
No one should be murdered, but the real world is not like that. Action must be taken against those with intent to murder.
Leftists enjoy pretending to be the underdog and intellectuals fighting a faulty status quo but in fact they make up a large proportion of the status quo and they are just stupid as the most idiotic bible camp nut except they make a lot more noise. I for one haven't been approached by even a mere jehovah's witness yet I hear leftists whine about irrelevant nonsense and be apologetic towards vicious tyrants around the globe. Wouldn't you agree!
>>14
You are only making the assumption that the truth is somewhere in the middle, except in the last example in which you sided clearly on the right.
> Leftists enjoy...fighting a...status quo
That's generally what unites people on the 'left'.
> they make up a large proportion of the status quo
Yes, "leftists" are ideologues just like rightists.
But rightists generally promote the "status quo" and resist change or seek to reverse it.
That's generally what unites people on the 'right'.
A great uniting and dividing factor is also simply the idea of left and right.
> they make a lot more noise.
No, that's just perspective. Like how an oil tanker on the horizon seems much smaller than the tugboat in dock next to you.
> I...haven't been approached by a...jehovah's witness...leftists whine about irrelevant nonsense
I haven't been approached by either one.
Well, the JWs have knocked on my door a few times, but they are usually tolerable and leave quickly. Still, never ran into an proselytizing leftist. Well, I saw a pair of war protesters once. Two of them. They didn't even shout though. I'm not sure why you are comparing JWs with leftists.
> and be apologetic towards vicious tyrants around the globe
That sounds exactly like the Kirkpatrick doctrine under Ronald Reagan, which supported right-wing dictatorships to further American interests.
Like supplying Saddam Hussein's Iraq to fight Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.
It feels like the last time ideologies were proper lables was way back in the mid-nineteenth century, since then lables have become tainted.
In terms of myself, I generally agree with what Marx had to say on economics and who should be holding power in a nation, but not what he had to say on relocating population and his loudly implied assertions that ethnic cleansing against bourgeois populations is excusable.
I also agree with Lenin where he reexplained Marxist theory so that it would make sense contemporarily, his largely more peaceful leanings, and in his vision of what a revolutionary party should look like, but not with his War Communism system implemented from 1918 to 1922 and not with his prosecution of anarchists and social democrats when they were not actively fighting against him.
Trotsky is the last of the theoreticians I admire, as his eye was one of very few which still saw the world for the way it was during the dark period of the 'thirties though I dislike how he tended to make generalizations based on limited evidence.
A couple others, not truly developers of economic or political theory but still insightful thinkers on the world situation, whom I agree with would be Orwell, Nikolai Murakov, Salvador Allende, Robert Cannon, and Diego Rivera.
I differ from most of the left I associate myself with, however, in that I believe that a revolution taking place in modern Europe will not be successful unless for if the United States is also swept up in it, and in that I believe that China is a waning power. I'm isolated from all but the most radical of US nationalists, as well, when I argue that the United States should maintain its armed presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans in order to prevent continuing ethnic violence from flaring up into full scale civil wars which may kill millions. Though I believe the environment will not survive forever under current circumstance, I also believe that global warming is not so severe as people make it out to be, and believe that humans come before nonsapient species. Also, our environment will not recover under the current damaging economic system, no matter what the Democrats and their Green buddies try to feed you.
I also have the understanding that explaining my political leanings cannot be done adequately with less than the amount of substance in this post; certainly not in one or two quick buzzwords.
>>15
Last time I checked I'm not preventing you from disproving me using mind powers, you will just have to [b]admit[/b] you cannot disprove me because I am correct.
>>16
I'm not making any assumptions, whether the conclusions are leftist or rightist don't matter to me.
"No, that's just perspective."
I have never been approached by an evangelical or someone from the moral right trying to change an opinion yet I am handed "STOP TEH WAR" pamphlets by some college fag and see "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY" posters and logos everywhere. My perspective is objective.
"That sounds exactly like the Kirkpatrick doctrine under Ronald Reagan, which supported right-wing dictatorships to further American interests.
Like supplying Saddam Hussein's Iraq to fight Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran."
So? What does that prove? 2 cheeks of the same ass is pretty much my argument.
>>17
You seem to have botherred putting thought into this, but why do you disapprove of the free market? Don't you understand the need for the service sector in an economy?
I have been approached by those from the moral right on many occassions. Also, no opinion is objective.
>>19
I disapprove of the chaos and arbitrary cruelty that a free market can cause. I'm not sure exactly what your comment about a service sector means; a planned economy does not necessarily preclude one.
In my perfect world, everyone in a certain locality would get together and plan out how to work the economy so that no one would need to get ripped off--the world has enough resources for this to be possible. Production and circulation of necessary commodities would be local whenever remotely possible. Luxuries would be the only things that would need to be traded over a long distance for.
And, of course, there would be a government which could organize things so that when one locality suffered for some reason or another, others could pitch in through the hard times so that everyone would come out better in the long run.
>>20
Nothing is absolutely certain, however we can validate assertions using reasonning. If this is done then the opinion is objective.
>>21
The free market is not crony capitalism. There is no point in rejecting a mathematical model used to calculate what is best for an economy because of who used it. Just because Hitler believed 1+1=2 it doesn't mean 1+1=2 is the cause of his evil. Excluding social, economic and political considerations (and 100s of other factors), the world has the resources to ensure everyone can live a comfortable standard of living. Include social, economic and political considerations (and 100s of other factors) however and the need for an efficient economic system to allow people to calculate how best to run the economy taking into account every consideration they can and give them the incentive to do so in proportion to their actual contribution to the economy becomes apparent.
Opposing multi-national corporations and such like just helps dictators overseas maintain divisions which are the actual cause of poverty.
> 2 cheeks of the same ass is pretty much my argument.
I think that's mine, too.
But I don't want to be sat on by either cheek, or blow a raspberry between them.
Using the word 'leftists' reveals a clear political leaning.
Here are some more political baitwords. Find which ones hook you and win my respect!
>>23
"Using the word 'leftists' reveals a clear political leaning."
As much as both the left and the right and disagreeable there is no point in denying their existence since they are clear and definable.
Watch from 01:10 to 01:30
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mIESO1jNRIs
As can be seen clearly ignoring problems before they escalate will lead directly to having that ass forced into your face and it's owner screaming at you to eat out it's unwiped asshole. Of course I know what is between those cheeks and don't want to look at it, all the more reason to make sure you know where it is.
All of these are used as political baitwords but this does not invalidate their relevance. Some of these as values are the only thing standing between your comfortable life in a developped country and a miserable life under a tyranny.
[b][u]Vital.[/b][/u]
liberty/freedom
justice
[b][u]Desirable[/b][/u]
security
equality
good
[b][u]Undesirable[/b][/u]
tyranny
terrorism
evil
[b][u]Arbitrary[/b][/u]
society
patriot
melting pot
multiculturalism
working class
left/right
<b><u>Vital.</b></u>
liberty/freedom
justice
<b><u>Desirable</b></u>
security
equality
good
<b><u>Undesirable</b></u>
tyranny
terrorism
evil
<b><u>Arbitrary</b></u>
society
patriot
melting pot
multiculturalism
working class
left/right
> As much as both the left and the right and disagreeable there is no point in denying their existence since they are clear and definable.
They only define themselves.
The word 'leftists' is a pejorative bundle term (like fascists), and as such it reveals a political motive. No one calls themselves 'leftists'. A Simple web search on 'leftists' is telling.
> As can be seen clearly ignoring problems before they escalate
How do we not ignore problems?
Do we invade a weak country friendly to our enemy and prop up a man that crushes his opposition?
Do we support a cruel dictator in his war against an unfriendly religious revolutionary government that overthrew that last man?
Do we stop that cruel dictator when he invades another friendly country against international protest?
Do we overthrow that cruel dictator's country because he no longer wants to do business with us?
Do we provide weapons to a religious revolt against an ideologically hostile empire invading their country?
Do we continue to provide support to those religious people, now oppressing their own, until they come back to hit us hard because of our own long string of interventionism?
History is not a series of isolated events and the choice to escalate is in the hands of those with the power.
> Some of these as values are the only thing standing between your comfortable life in a developped country and a miserable life under a tyranny.
Those values are viral ideas that are abused to convince you that your country has more right to exist than the other country. Tyranny is on your doorstep and in your city hall.
As for freedom, your Idea of Freedom is a luxury for the rich that the poor can not afford.
True Freedom is the anti-thesis of comfort and security, and a cruel reality that few could tolerate.
>>26
"No one calls themselves 'leftists'."
They call themselves progressives.
"How do we not ignore problems?"
By taking into account problems that will occur as the result of your actions aswell. A common error in logic is the idea that it is constrained to what springs to mind in the first 5 seconds. If you force yourself to sit in front of a piece of paper and brainstorm absolutely everything, no matter how unlikely or innocuous, that can be a problem then you will be much more effective. They neglected to do this.
"True Freedom is the anti-thesis of comfort and security, and a cruel reality that few could tolerate."
So there's absolutely nothing to the idea of freedom? So why aren't war protestors executed? Do you think it was always like this and people are just saying "lol teh freedoms" for no reason? Of course these ideals are abused but that does not mean they have no meaning.
> So there's absolutely nothing to the idea of freedom?
Not unless you have the political/financial leverage to use it as a cudgel for political/financial gain.
You'll notice not many of the world's wealthiest people are ever convicted of a crime. Bernard Ebbers got it, but he's serving his, likely brief, 25 years here:
http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oad/index.jsp
He drove himself there in his Mercedes.
As for the politically powerful, it's unheard of for the leader of a 'free' country to be convicted of a crime. Especially when they have any influence on the judiciary or can pardon themselves.
Prisons are for the poor and weak.
> So why aren't war protestors executed?
The pervasiveness of television and public pressure not to do so.
That's what martial law is for, though.
Beside, plenty of war protesters are being executed, just not within the borders of your country.
> Of course these ideals are abused
On an hourly basis.
> that does not mean they have no meaning.
Only if you can afford it.
>>28
There is no logic to anything you've said. Troll?
> As for the politically powerful, it's unheard of for the leader of a 'free' country to be convicted of a crime.
Or it could be because they are under constant scrutiny and their 6 figure incomes means they have no incentive to jack cars or sell ice to fellow senators.
> The pervasiveness of television and public pressure not to do so.
Assuming we are ruled by a dictator who can [b]kill anybody[/b] I fail to see the relevance of this.
> On an hourly basis.
So liberty only exists in a 100% crime free society?
> Only if you can afford it.
So I can shoot up a school and not face prosecution?
> Troll?
If I'm a troll, then you are the only one stupid enough to fall for it.
If I'm not a troll, then you are the only one stubborn and frustrated enough to think so.
> Or it could be because they are under constant scrutiny
Nope, that just makes it harder to not get discovered.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush.
They all had their empires of corruption.
The only difference is Nixon and Bush ran out of political capital. Nixon was pardoned before the prosecution could start and Bush is unlikely to get prosecuted at all.
> 6 figure incomes
If everyone just stopped when they got 'rich enough', capitalism wouldn't work.
> no incentive to jack cars or sell ice to fellow senators.
Senators take bribes, embezzle funds, launder money and do what they must to get elected and stay in office.
> So I can shoot up a school and not face prosecution?
To ignore your continuing use of straw men:
Yes, you can get away with murder if you can afford the means to dodge a conviction.
>If I'm a troll, then you are the only one stupid enough to fall for it.
>If I'm not a troll, then you are the only one stubborn and frustrated enough to think so.
Trolls only win if their victim writes more than them.
>They all had their empires of corruption.
And if the US were a despotism they would be able to kill anyone who spoke out against it.
>If everyone just stopped when they got 'rich enough', capitalism wouldn't work.
I never said greed was eliminated. Greed is reduced by wealth.
>Senators take bribes, embezzle funds, launder money
>Yes, you can get away with murder if you can afford the means to dodge a conviction.
This only proves that the US is not perfect, it does not prove it is a despotism.
> Trolls only win if their victim writes more than them.
Alright, the competition is on!
> And if the US were a despotism they would be able to kill anyone who spoke out against it.
They have; Dirty foreigners.
> Greed is reduced by wealth.
No. Need is reduced.
> This only proves that the US is not perfect, it does not prove it is a despotism.
Not what I sought to prove.
Solution=
1.) Revolution
2.) anarchy
3. restructuring
4.) ?????
5.) PROFIT!!!