Where are people on the political spectrum?

[Doer]

I'm a libertarian in the traditional use of the word, not the american perversion of it. I believe in the freedom of the individual from the oppression of others including the government, but I believe in an economic system where the wealth is owned by those who create it (the worker) and in public ownership/planning of the economy. I just think that almost every aspect of capitalism is a negative one.

When that has been tried it never works. Workers don't create wealth as opposed to the rich that just over consume. That's just dogma. Theory. Marxism. Sounds fun to repeat. It can't possible work. We are not wired like that as humans. We compete.

So, you and I are fur traders. Both the worker and the owner of the means of production. Now, if you have another idea of how wealth building begins, I'd love to hear. I'm pretty sure there is not an alternative, to two people competing.

You have a good year, many furs. I fell into the steam, lost my bag of traplines and generally didn't do so well. What century are we in. BTW?

Any of them. It is happening right now in Canada and Russia. But, let's say I'm talking about 10,000 BC. It really doesn't matter.

You, compared to me, are big time. Definitely successful breeding material. You get the chief's daughter. My dog ran off. You produce a son. I sleep alone and get ill. You have a great next season, full of hope and vigor. I get a slow start. In a few years you have 3 in the production and still no ownership of the business. You will become the next chief, I watch from the back, happy to be allowed to stay.

So, weath happens only this way. Many many chances to become wealthy today, if you take the risks, the rewards and the knocks, like these fur traders.

Let's go back to the time of no wealth in this continent. Unlike in the South land mass, the local people did not hoard gold. So start from scratch.

All the wealth was created this way. BTW, Gold is rarely found on the surface. But, it has been mined for millennium.

But, you see how our little band of fur trappers had already become a tribe before we got there. What we attained is worthless unless we can attract a woman. It is the story of our civilization. Thus it is every so. Don't get lost in the modern Fariey tales of just applying labels. That the tribe will re-distribute wealth to you. You get subsistence if you produce nothing. And if not glad for that then you are an insurgent trying to take wealth from someone else. Everything is the same. Only the labels of theory and power have changed.

All that we see, wealth and horror, came from just those humble beginning, It took 40,000 years just to get this far. The natural way is the only way, dispute the theories of commune or whatever that gets thrown up on the wall to fail.

 

[Sand4x105]

...
...
...
It took 40,000 years just to get this far. The natural way is the only way, dispute the theories of commune or whatever that gets thrown up on the wall.

I totally agree.... but surely you will piss off all the beleivers in the BIBLE, which says: "Earth is just 6500 years old"
[In the beggining God , bla, bla, bla... and then seven days later he rested...]
so 6500 years plus 7 days...
Politics, where am I, I am in the Land of me, I am God to myself, I wish the:
Gnostics had a party... I like to party...

 

[desert dude]

When that has been tried it never works. Workers don't create wealth as opposed to the rich that just over consume. That's just dogma. Theory. Marxism. Sounds fun to repeat. It can't possible work. We are not wired like that as humans. We compete.

So, you and I are fur traders. Both the worker and the owner of the means of production. Now, if you have another idea of how wealth building begins, I'd love to hear. I'm pretty sure there is not an alternative, to two people competing.

You have a good year, many furs. I fell into the steam, lost my bag of traplines and generally didn't do so well. What century are we in. BTW?

Any of them. It is happening right now in Canada and Russia. But, let's say I'm talking about 10,000 BC. It really doesn't matter.

You, compared to me, are big time. Definitely successful breeding material. You get the chief's daughter. My dog ran off. You produce a son. I sleep alone and get ill. You have a great next season, full of hope and vigor. I get a slow start. In a few years you have 3 in the production and still no ownership of the business. You will become the next chief, I watch from the back, happy to be allowed to stay.

So, wreath happens only this way. Many many chances to become wealthy today, if you take the risks, the rewards and the knocks, like these fur traders.

Let's go back to the time of no wealth in this continent. Unlike in the South land mass, the local people did not hoard gold. So start from scratch.

All the wealth was created this way. BTW, Gold is rarely found on the surface. But, it has been mined for millennium.

But, you see how our little band of fur trappers had already become a tribe before we got there. What we attained is worthless unless we can attract a woman. It is the story of our civilization. Thus it is every so. Don't get lost in the modern fariey tails of just applying label. Everything is the same. Only the label of theory and power have changed.

All that we see, wealth and horror, came from just those humble beginning, It took 40,000 years just to get this far. The natural way is the only way, dispute the theories of commune or whatever that gets thrown up on the wall.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Doer again."

Well said, Doer! Between you and Kynes, I can't get a point in edge wise.

 

[deprave]

I am basically Libertarian Anarchist / Anarcho-Capiltist / Market Anarchist formerly objective minarchist, a sort of modern classical liberal, much more radical than traditional classical liberals.

Kind of if you take Dr Keyens, and remove the feelings that some human beings are savages and insert the idea that at heart at least initially every human being has good intentions.

or like mr neutron only 30 years younger...

 

[abandonconflict]

then you are a trotskyite.

socialism robs the individual of liberty for the good of the state, and was never intended to be anything more than a stepping stone to stateless utopian communism.

by embracing socialism you necessarily endorse the elimination of personal liberty an individual sovereignty which is fundamental to the concept of democracy.

"democratic socialism" is simply slow-motion proletarian revolution with the final aim of a marxist utopian society. this has the advantage of being reversible all the way up to the establishment of the one party state, and the reduction of radicalized proletarian vanguard zealots hurling their bodies at the barricades, but in the end all forms of socialism rob from one group to satisfy the desires of another.

until you discover that YOU are also being robbed, being a socialist is always the popular choice, since socialists are so generous (with other people's shit) that everybody can see how much they really care.

socialists are invariably the penniless radical rabble screaming for somebody to give them free shit, or the hyper-wealthy plutocrats stalking the halls of power (like Diane Feinstein). meanwhile the masses in the middle who KNOW what hard work is, and recognize the need to actually get up and do shit remain staunchly anti-socialist. socialism offers them nothing but a booted heel from above, and grasping fingers from below rifling through their pockets.

let me guess which one you are.

Nobody is ever going to try to enforce commune upon you, but if they do, I will have your back.

However, will you have my back when someone wishes to take private possession of my ancestral homeland in order to exploit resources to sell?

 

[abandonconflict]

http://libertyrevival.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/voluntaryism-is-feudalism/

 

[abandonconflict]

The rampant fallacy of the McCarthyists is the idea that anarchists wish "enforce group ownership" of land. Anarchists consider ALL ownership of land group or private, to be a hindrance of liberty.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

 

[Doer]

I totally agree.... but surely you will piss off all the beleivers in the BIBLE, which says: "Earth is just 6500 years old"
[In the beggining God , bla, bla, bla... and then seven days later he rested...]
so 6500 years plus 7 days...
Politics, where am I, I am in the Land of me, I am God to myself, I wish the:
Gnostics had a party... I like to party...

Those beliefs pissed me off a long time ago. And the grudges that are held, that can wreak us, are religious. We have freedom from people that think like this and freedom from worry about their sensitivities.

Oh, BTW, the Constitution that was just passed in Egypt makes it un-constitutional to express freedom of speech. That is, if it can be construed to be insults to the Prophets of Islam. We already know the penalties in Sharia...which is much more than Religion. It is the basis of all the laws. And in the document is the acknowledgment of the construe-ist of Sharia. It's a group of Islamic scholars, call Al Aziz or something. They call the shots. Very arbitrary. In their Constitution, by name.

(Rights of women were expunged. They were in the old version specifically.)

So, in this country pissing off or on Religions is a right and a duty.

 

[Doer]

Nobody is ever going to try to enforce commune upon you, but if they do, I will have your back.

However, will you have my back when someone wishes to take private possession of my ancestral homeland in order to exploit resources to sell?

Do you mean furs? What do you call your ancestral homeland?

 

[Doer]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Doer again."

Well said, Doer! Between you and Kynes, I can't get a point in edge wise.

I took typing in High School...to meet girls. I can't give you a rep right now either.

 

[abandonconflict]

When that has been tried it never works. Workers don't create wealth as opposed to the rich that just over consume. That's just dogma. Theory. Marxism. Sounds fun to repeat. It can't possible work. We are not wired like that as humans. We compete.

So, you and I are fur traders. Both the worker and the owner of the means of production. Now, if you have another idea of how wealth building begins, I'd love to hear. I'm pretty sure there is not an alternative, to two people competing.

You have a good year, many furs. I fell into the steam, lost my bag of traplines and generally didn't do so well. What century are we in. BTW?

Any of them. It is happening right now in Canada and Russia. But, let's say I'm talking about 10,000 BC. It really doesn't matter.

You, compared to me, are big time. Definitely successful breeding material. You get the chief's daughter. My dog ran off. You produce a son. I sleep alone and get ill. You have a great next season, full of hope and vigor. I get a slow start. In a few years you have 3 in the production and still no ownership of the business. You will become the next chief, I watch from the back, happy to be allowed to stay.

So, weath happens only this way. Many many chances to become wealthy today, if you take the risks, the rewards and the knocks, like these fur traders.

Let's go back to the time of no wealth in this continent. Unlike in the South land mass, the local people did not hoard gold. So start from scratch.

All the wealth was created this way. BTW, Gold is rarely found on the surface. But, it has been mined for millennium.

But, you see how our little band of fur trappers had already become a tribe before we got there. What we attained is worthless unless we can attract a woman. It is the story of our civilization. Thus it is every so. Don't get lost in the modern Fariey tales of just applying labels. That the tribe will re-distribute wealth to you. You get subsistence if you produce nothing. And if not glad for that then you are an insurgent trying to take wealth from someone else. Everything is the same. Only the labels of theory and power have changed.

All that we see, wealth and horror, came from just those humble beginning, It took 40,000 years just to get this far. The natural way is the only way, dispute the theories of commune or whatever that gets thrown up on the wall to fail.

Deciphering...

Laissez Faire makes sense along with Social Darwinism.

Darwin didn't say "survival of the fittest", that was right wing economist Herbert Spencer. "Survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of Natural Selection.

 

[abandonconflict]

Do you mean furs? What do you call your ancestral homeland?

Do you mean earth? What do you call your privately owned land?

 

[see4]

I am pro marijuana, pro guns, pro gay rights, pro less government, pro science, pro church. I could just sum it up in one way, I am pro rational thinker.

 

[Doer]

Deciphering...

Laissez Faire makes sense along with Social Darwinism.

Darwin didn't say "survival of the fittest", that was right wing economist Herbert Spencer. "Survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of Natural Selection.

Oh, don't try to fool us with your deciphering. What you do is couch it all into terms of your fantasy. If you want to prose go ahead. But, just to re-cast everything into a twisted, unusual view, is religion. Go and present your ideas. There is no way to decode my original thoughts into your cult.

My presentation has nothing to do with labels. I said nothing about these labels of yours. But, I was talking about the pathetic, imo, need of some people to label everything so it can be crushed and dismissed with sarcasm.

And you just showed us again. Earth is not what you meant. I think you mean Aztlan and won't admit it.

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught in school that the United States stole that land, which they call “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…

• In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.”

 

[Dr Kynes]

The rampant fallacy of the McCarthyists is the idea that anarchists wish "enforce group ownership" of land. Anarchists consider ALL ownership of land group or private, to be a hindrance of liberty.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

where did mccarthyism come in? he was a fearmongering autocratic despot. his "politics" were irrelevant. if he needed to be a black bloc anarchist to gain his position he would put on his ski mask and burn down his mother's house.

and yes, "anarcho capitalism" is an oxymoron.

and so is anarcho-libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-ANYTHINGIST.

anarchy is the destruction of all order and social structure, it has no gradations of severity.

you simply cannot have "just a little" anarchy, any more than you can have "just a little" theocracy or "just a little" marxist revolution.

you can have a political theory with personal sovereignty, and liberty but once you throw even a drop of "Anarchy" in the mix you get The Road Warrior.

anarchy is the opposition to ALL political theories by embracing the belief that there are no political options, merely every man for himself, in a hardscrabble existence which leads to either reversion to the stone age, or the rise of warlords, and eventually a new royalty.

pretending otherwise is sophistry.

 

[Kervork]

Neo Anarchist Libertarian with socialist leanings on health care.

Anarchy does not imply lack of rules, it only implies freedom to accept or reject those rules. The internet exists in a state of anarchy. If I adhere to the rules of the tcp/ip protocol or udp protocol my packets are passed. If I create malformed packets, they are not passed through various routers. In the case of say the apache web server, I am free to use the code as is, or to take the code and modify it in any way I desire. Within the limitations of tcp/ip and udp I have absolute freedom to do what I want. If I want to create a new protocol I can. I also have the freedom to use an alternative to tcp/ip however this requires creating the infrastructure to support it.

Anarchy does not forbid cooperation. The fairest model is to collectively create that structure which we cannot individually create and to allow open access to that structure so we can individually exploit it to our own financial gain. I did not create the internet, only a small part, however I have access to the entire internet to use for my financial gain.

If I abuse that access, such as sending spam, I am not punished by the government (in most cases), my upstream provider merely shuts me down after repeated complaints.

We already have examples of a little anarchy. The open source movement exists in a state of anarchy. This example shows that anarchy can emerge in a system of great complexity. The open source ecosystem is incredibly complex with many dependencies, yet it exists without any true leadership or attributes which could be considered a governing body.

True freedom can be achieved only through anarchy and a system where you are allowed to both make and choose the rules you will live by. We already have example of this with religion. One person can eat pork, another can't. Their different rule sets do not mean they cannot coexist in the same physical space.

I don't know where you got your ideas about anarchy but they don't conform to many concepts.

(Wikipedia reference)

Anarchy has more than one definition. Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] When used in this sense, anarchy may[SUP][3][/SUP] or may not[SUP][4][/SUP] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.
Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Anarchy is also a technical issue of economic science.[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP][SUP][citation needed][/SUP]


As far as survival of the fittest go, all organisms think they are the fittest. Natures actions suggest that cockeroaches are more fit than we are.

 

[jessimae]

where did mccarthyism come in? he was a fearmongering autocratic despot. his "politics" were irrelevant. if he needed to be a black bloc anarchist to gain his position he would put on his ski mask and burn down his mother's house.

and yes, "anarcho capitalism" is an oxymoron.

and so is anarcho-libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-ANYTHINGIST.

anarchy is the destruction of all order and social structure, it has no gradations of severity.

you simply cannot have "just a little" anarchy, any more than you can have "just a little" theocracy or "just a little" marxist revolution.

you can have a political theory with personal sovereignty, and liberty but once you throw even a drop of "Anarchy" in the mix you get The Road Warrior.

anarchy is the opposition to ALL political theories by embracing the belief that there are no political options, merely every man for himself, in a hardscrabble existence which leads to either reversion to the stone age, or the rise of warlords, and eventually a new royalty.

pretending otherwise is sophistry.

anarchy is the opposition of hierarchy. voluntary horizontal associations are peachy fucking keen.

 

[desert dude]

I took typing in High School...to meet girls. I can't give you a rep right now either.

That wasn't typing, that was authorship!

 

[canndo]

I am a non-thinking sheep liberal with no thoughts of my own who follows Obama talking points exclusively and argues with my heart rather than my brain. I am certain that the world will end with rising tides, that veganism is the best for the planet and I don't wear any leather. I believe that government knows best because the people know best and they elect whom they know to be the best people for the job of leading us.


Other than that I am highly educated, well aware and enlightened as to the political process. I am a 21st century progressive.

 

[Doer]

anarchy is the opposition of hierarchy. voluntary horizontal associations are peachy fucking keen.

You just described the Mafia. An underground warlord, collecting Protection, running rackets. Arbitrary dispensations and punishments. A psycopath perhaps. It is the step down. The problem with you theorists, is it has all been tried. Look at my fur economy tribe. When you are born, since you ain't Adam, there exists a hierarchy. You were born and were enslaved, before conscious thought into the natural hierarchy of the world. You can't change it, you can only change the label. And even those are nothing new.

It has never been different and cannot be different. Anarchists are against the social order, only. They provide nothing. And the natural hierarchy will hunt you down. If not your father, then someone, if you mess with wrong person.