Where are people on the political spectrum?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Is this a valuable principle? What does it accomplish? How does it redeem the foreseeable consequence of continual challenge stagnating the system by shutting down its capacity to function?

Is there any difference between that directive and "if you see a sand castle ... kick it!"? cn
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my meaning. It is better articulated by Noam Chomsky.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
You misunderstand my meaning. It is better articulated by Noam Chomsky.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
Click to expand...
OK, but "should" (or the equivalent "has to") doesn't feed the bulldog. I'm seeing a moral principle being proposed, but is it one that is consistent with what we know of human history? (I suggest not, but am willing to be convinced by actual working examples ...) cn
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Nah. Get a life. Honor the hierarchy....before it's too late. Anarchism? What? It's a way of thought, not governance, at all. Is that all you got? How can there be anarchy if there is authority?

So stupid. Do you think we spent hundreds of years and millions of lifetimes to have a system that can be dismantled just because some Marxist says that, "it should be...?" What burden of proof? What claptrap!

There is no such thing as anarchy. It is not allowed. You are allowed to think whatever way, but dismantle? Oh, Hell no.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
OK, but "should" (or the equivalent "has to") doesn't feed the bulldog. I'm seeing a moral principle being proposed, but is it one that is consistent with what we know of human history? (I suggest not, but am willing to be convinced by actual working examples ...) cn
Click to expand...
"Today's problems can not be solved if we still think the way we thought when we created them."
~Albert Einstein


We've done this before.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
In Honor there is Hope. I know nothing of Providence.
Click to expand...
To honor is not necessarily honor. I did not capitalize providence, capitalized, it has different meaning.

I did capitalize, but only because it began the statement, not because I meant to imply divine providence. That has different meaning.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Nah. Get a life. Honor the hierarchy....before it's too late. Anarchism? What? It's a way of thought, not governance, at all. Is that all you got? How can there be anarchy if there is authority?

So stupid. Do you think we spent hundreds of years and millions of lifetimes to have a system that can be dismantled just because some Marxist says that, "it should be...?" What burden of proof? What claptrap!

There is no such thing as anarchy. It is not allowed. You are allowed to think whatever way, but dismantle? Oh, Hell no.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
Click to expand...
You consent to be ruled. I'm not a Marxist, I despise Marxism. Idiot.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Read closely. I didn't say you. I know you despise Marxism. I despise all -isms. Your quote was just another -ism, to me.

Anarchism....Anachronism

But, don't we all consent to be ruled?

There are a lot of examples of those wishing to set up their own utopia. There is one in planning right now. It is to be set outside the 3 mile limit off the Golden Gate bridge. They say they will not be under the authority of the US. Nope. That's 200 miles.

It can't work. It will never work. Why? Deadly force.
Conquest. Call it what you will.

There is the example of the Indonesia. Some Oz types poured over the old maps and found, sure enough, a un-claimed atoll. So, they capitalized and dredged, etc. Built up a little casino paradise. Soon after it opened, Indonesia annexed them. They sent some deadly forces, of course.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Noam Chomsky isn't a Marxist either, he's an anarchist.

Just because words ending in the suffix ism (many in the language with which we are exchanging ideas) does not mean they are not words with values pertinent to the ideas we are both expressing.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
You still aren't telling us what an anarchist is. Is is a state of mind, a system of governance, or an activity?
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
I'm an Anarcho-Primitivist with slightly collectivist leanings; Though I typically vote Libertarian. Used to be a Nationalist, but Richard Barrett and I had a falling out a few years back. John Zerzan is an Anarcho-Primitivist, but I find his writings to be a little incoherant sometimes. None the less, other books I've read such as "Pandora's Seed" have shaped my political philosophy. Nihilistic Anarcho-Primitivism seems to be the most natural political philosophy for humans; but that's just opinion of course.

The only problem I have with communism is that it holds the labor theory of value at it's core. It's a flawed theory in my opinion.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You still aren't telling us what an anarchist is. Is is a state of mind, a system of governance, or an activity?
Click to expand...
Hierarchy = in the box. Don't look for anarchists in that box bro.

Just call me a utopian and forget about it, easier that way. It's true anyway.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NietzscheKeen said:
I'm an Anarcho-Primitivist with slightly collectivist leanings; Though I typically vote Libertarian. Used to be a Nationalist, but Richard Barrett and I had a falling out a few years back. John Zerzan is an Anarcho-Primitivist, but I find his writings to be a little incoherant sometimes. None the less, other books I've read such as "Pandora's Seed" have shaped my political philosophy. Nihilistic Anarcho-Primitivism seems to be the most natural political philosophy for humans; but that's just opinion of course.

The only problem I have with communism is that it holds the labor theory of value at it's core. It's a flawed theory in my opinion.
Click to expand...
WTF are you doing on a computer?!!!?!??1!!?!?!one?!!1??!eleven
 
SnakeByte

SnakeByte

Active Member
Found this thing that seems at least a little accurate: The Political Compass
They DO NOT ask for name, age, or sex.
Basically a 6 page survey on whether or not you strongly disagree/agree with statements provided.

A Few Examples:
-Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
-Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
and
-The rich are too highly taxed.

This will then show you where you stand politically on a Cartesian plane (four quadrant graph).
graph.JPG

Here is mine.
Economic Left: -4.62
Social Libertarian: -3.85

And for those who might know me... Believe it or not, that's near Gandhi.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
"... while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." V for Vendetta

This is intentional obfuscation of language. When the meaning of words is arbitrary, just like ideologies, they lose all meaning.

Btw, I am a classic liberal. I used to say I was a Libertarian but I think the classic liberal definition suits me better, since the meaning of Libertarian is so often mistaken.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you - a true liberal is one who sees individual rights - AND governmental support for the individual as paramount in every balance between government, business and the individual citizen.


When in doubt - the citizen comes first.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I tend to agree with you - a true liberal is one who sees individual rights - AND governmental support for the individual as paramount in every balance between government, business and the individual citizen.


When in doubt - the citizen comes first.
Click to expand...
Laissez Faire is Social Darwinism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top