Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 08:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 08:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think your cartoon at the top is a simplistic caricature. Funny old thing, libertarians come out as *the* most reasonable and wonderful people on God's green Earth. I'm *guessing* the cartoon was put together... by some boy scout libertarian, to help people make the right political choices. How incredibly nice of him Smile
There's a website and a Facebook feed with cartoons like that... But they're mostly insider jokes.
Simplistic? Compared to what, atheism?
[Image: 1888653_630699123650275_215934376_n.jpg]

Simplistic because politics is *all* shades of grey, and your cartoon misrepresents people's positions very simply as
Left - wants a shit ton of government for good purposes
Right - wants a shit ton of government for bad purposes
Libertarian - wants no government because bunny rabbits and rainbows and fairies.

I mean, even your own propaganda is pretty fucking defective if that's your best argument - that people are gonna magically be nicer to each other if you just suspend all the rules society has spent the last 2000 odd years refining.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like morondog's post
31-07-2014, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 09:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 09:16 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Perhaps the biggest problem with libertarians is that they ignore that the free market can exist under a socialist system, and that you can have a state and a free market.

I myself believe the best system is free market socialism, as it can ensure social justice, prosperity and freedom.
These words sound very nice, but what do they mean?
Socialism: using violence to take property from the individual and re-distribute it trough a group of centralized powerfully violent individuals.
I don't know how that jibes with anything good.

(31-07-2014 09:16 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Unlike libertarians, who see only room for the individual, I believe there is room for individualism within the nation. Nationalism, contrary to popular belief, is not necessarily putting the nation above the individual, but merely wanting self-determination for your national group.
Nation? What the hell is a nation? It's a made-up (cultural) thing. It's like a sports club and I'm not even a fan. Nationalism only makes sense if you're oppressed by another nation, which is not exactly an argument for being a nationalist, more like against it.
I know nationalism piggybacked every single social issue there was, labor issues, religious conflicts, industrialization, agrarian revolution, bourgeoise revolution....
But in the end, nation gets so generalized that it does not mean almost anything except language (and you see English isn't my national language anyway). In the end the only thing that means is a freedom for the individual. If sovereign nations are good, then sovereign individuals are even better. And people must be raised to be sovereign since birth. That is, without violence.

(31-07-2014 09:16 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Also, why I do think a stateless society should be a final goal, it would take at least a 100 years of preparation before such a thing could even be attempted.
Well, if people will raise their children with violence and coercion, maybe even these 100 years will not be enough. But if a single generation of children is given time to grow up peacefully through formative years, let's say 5 years, they will see the state as we see the Catholic Church today: an ancient, oppressive, primitive institution.

If the state disappeared overnight, it would be a disaster. People would go crazy, like when Americans overthrew Saddam Hussein, people went to set up various religious governments and started fighting for who gets to be the top dog.

I want to talk to people about there not being any top dog, or voting who gets screwed over. I want to talk about making deals peacefully as equals and about raising children without hitting and raised voice. Hitting is bad and hitting children does not teach them not to hit, it teaches them hitting is OK.

Taxing people does not teach us that stealing is bad, it teaches that stealing is OK if you're powerful enough.

(31-07-2014 09:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  Simplistic because politics is *all* shades of Nazional Sozialist brown, and your cartoon misrepresents people's positions very simply as
Left - wants a shit ton of violence for supposedly good purposes
Right - wants a shit ton of violence for bad purposes
Libertarian - wants no violence because brain development and economy and morality.
Here. I fixed it for ya.

(31-07-2014 09:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  I mean, even your own propaganda is pretty fucking defective if that's your best argument - that people are gonna magically be nicer to each other if you just suspend all the rules society has spent the last 2000 odd years refining.
This is what I was told about libertarians before. Then I learned that libertarianism is not about suspension of rules, it is about respecting rules by not having any central power that we just have to cross our fingers and pray that Obama will be a nice guy when he gets to the office, at least nicer than Bush. Let's not have any central power offices. Let's just buy the services we want or go to competition. Let's not be exiled to Somalia if we don't like the service, let's simply pay for some other service provider. Security, justice, insurance and healthcare are just goods and services on the market and socializing them only makes them more expensive and lower quality. Also, it screws up the justice completely.

I don't require people to be nicer. If people do not have the police and army monopoly on power and money, they have statistically no choice but to be nice, or face private municipal security organizations, sheriffs, personal weapons and private-run prisons.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 09:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  I mean, even your own propaganda is pretty fucking defective if that's your best argument - that people are gonna magically be nicer to each other if you just suspend all the rules society has spent the last 2000 odd years refining.

Read his posting history. That is his argument. Magical thinking.

Plus truckloads of psychotic disdain for those who have the unmitigated temerity to point out that things aren't true just because you assert them.
(but be careful; do that one too many times, and you'll get psychoanalysed by a raving lunatic - do it a couple more times after that, and you'll get ignored purged for insufficient Ideological Purity)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
So, in a libertarian world, I can just make my currency and it must be accepted?

Facepalm


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 10:05 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 09:55 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So, in a libertarian world, I can just make my currency and it must be accepted?

Facepalm
You can make your own currency even today, in libertarian world called internet. Ever heard of Dogecoin? Wink
But why it "must be accepted"? If it's a good currency, then people will want to accept it. If it's a bad currency, they won't. That way only good currencies will be valued. If you make golden coins, or a cryptocurrency with a very cool functions and protocol, people will accept them. If you make coins out of wood chips and dried non-cannabis leaves, people will not use it to trade.

Dollar is not a good currency, because it's printed endlessly to fund wars. It has less than zero value and people don't want to use it, but they have to. What happens if you don't accept, let's say, dollar? If you don't accept dollar, you don't pay taxes and the government sends you many scary warning letters. If you ignore the letters, IRS will attack your home. If your defend our home with a gun you own, you are shot. This is what "currency must be accepted" means. There is no positive must in libertarian world, that would get you inevitably shot by men in blue or green costumes which give them exemption from morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't require people to be nicer. If people do not have the police and army monopoly on power and money, they have statistically no choice but to be nice, or face private municipal security organizations, sheriffs, personal weapons and private-run prisons.

You think might makes right is a good thing? Let's take a look at powerful men. Don't think that those won't exist in your so-bright-future anarchist society. Are they all gonna be angels? Fuck no. So now you want them to have *private* weapons and *private* prisons and *private* police forces so that there'll be *private* justice for all?

It's FUCKING DUMB!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
31-07-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't require people to be nicer. If people do not have the police and army monopoly on power and money, they have statistically no choice but to be nice, or face private municipal security organizations, sheriffs, personal weapons and private-run prisons.

You think might makes right is a good thing? Let's take a look at powerful men. Don't think that those won't exist in your so-bright-future anarchist society. Are they all gonna be angels? Fuck no. So now you want them to have *private* weapons and *private* prisons and *private* police forces so that there'll be *private* justice for all?

It's FUCKING DUMB!

Oh come on now clearly if we remove any counteracting force the wealthy will openly share all their money and power. They certainly would not set up totalitarian feudal style principalities. Why that would be silly to think they would act in their own self interest instead of giving away their wealth and power.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Now, I know he's not listening to me, BUT - this is as full of bullshit as anything ol' Lumi has said.

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You can make your own currency even today, in libertarian world called internet. Ever heard of Dogecoin? Wink

I like how he's not shilling Bitcoins anymore. Because it turns out because of their "unregulated" structure, they turned out to be susceptible to fraud and corruption, and can be trivially controlled by a natural monopoly.

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But why it "must be accepted"? If it's a good currency, then people will want to accept it. If it's a bad currency, they won't.

Indeed. "Everyone pays with whatever they want" has been tried before. It's called barter. There's a reason we didn't stick with it.

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That way only good currencies will be valued. If you make golden coins, or a cryptocurrency with a very cool functions and protocol, people will accept them. If you make coins out of wood chips and dried non-cannabis leaves, people will not use it to trade.

Um, no. Value is context sensitive.

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Dollar is not a good currency, because it's printed endlessly to fund wars.

Facepalm
Weeping

I'd say citation needed, but we all know that'll never happen. Never face facts when feels will do!

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It has less than zero value and people don't want to use it, but they have to.

Value is socially determined. Nothing has any value absent context.

I'd tell him to read a book, but he got too pissy to listen to me.

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What happens if you don't accept, let's say, dollar? If you don't accept dollar, you don't pay taxes and the government sends you many scary warning letters. If you ignore the letters, IRS will attack your home. If your defend our home with a gun you own, you are shot. This is what "currency must be accepted" means.

No, that isn't what it means. Currency is a representation of abstracted value. Refusing to pay taxes has nothing to do with the existence of a preferred medium of exchange. What kind of nonsensical equivocation is that?

(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There is no positive must in libertarian world, that would get you inevitably shot by men in blue or green costumes which give them exemption from morality.

That isn't even remotely true, but clearly being disingenuously far up your own asshole is more important than engaging with reality.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 10:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 10:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  You think might makes right is a good thing? Let's take a look at powerful men. Don't think that those won't exist in your so-bright-future anarchist society. Are they all gonna be angels? Fuck no. So now you want them to have *private* weapons and *private* prisons and *private* police forces so that there'll be *private* justice for all?

It's FUCKING DUMB!

Oh come on now clearly if we remove any counteracting force the wealthy will openly share all their money and power. They certainly would not set up totalitarian feudal style principalities. Why that would be silly to think they would act in their own self interest instead of giving away their wealth and power.

Of course. The best way for any society - especially one professing to value equality - to deal with natural disparities of wealth, power, and influence is to do nothing at all about them.

Makes perfect sense.

Hobo

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 10:50 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  You think might makes right is a good thing? Let's take a look at powerful men. Don't think that those won't exist in your so-bright-future anarchist society. Are they all gonna be angels? Fuck no. So now you want them to have *private* weapons and *private* prisons and *private* police forces so that there'll be *private* justice for all?

It's FUCKING DUMB!
What do you mean, powerful? Powerful like Barrack Obama, who can fuckin' start wars? Or powerful like Steve Jobs, who stole some ideas and used his power to give rich people an option to buy expensive tablets? I can say no to Apple. But I can't say no to my government, because if I keep saying no long enough, I get shot. This would not by definition happen in a free society.

I would add something about that network society is completely different from hierarchical society, but that is way abstract for where we are now. I'd just say, when someone takes a shit in a hierarchy, the shit falls on everyone below him and people below are absolutely unable to stop people above from shitting on them. The person above shits the most because nobody can shit back on him or stop him on the same level. When someone takes a shit in a network society, the shit stays with him, it falls on nobody or very few people and then he is cut off from the network so that the shit can't spread.
This is why I think having a hierarchy of power (politics, state) is dumb.

There's nothing more important than food and yet we all eat private-produced food. Try nationalizing food - it was called the great famine of Ukraine. And yeah, I'd take private justice that competes with each other, just like I want private insurance that has a competition. Competition improves services.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: