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
06-08-2014, 04:42 PM
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 03:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 03:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm not sure what tobkaje of this post but you seem to equate government with totalitarianism.
The difference between government and totalitarianism is only in degree, not in kind.
[Image: TheTruePoliticalSpectrum.jpg]

(06-08-2014 03:14 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fucking hell, at least somebody got it. Rolleyes
Nope Facepalm
MARKET IS SAFER AGAINST RULE-BREAKING THAN GOVERNMENT. Competitors back the customers up!
[Image: networktypes.png]

And the old but popular question: Who will build the roads???
[Image: tomwoods.jpg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ypass.html
Okay. So libertarianism (as a form of governance) is similar to totalitarianism too?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 05:06 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 04:30 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I've learned a lot by reading this thread. What stands out at this point is the revelation that theists don't have a monopoly on distorted thought processes. Armed with this new information I hope to become more vigilant. And for that, thank you Luminon. Before this thread Stefan Molyneaux was just some woman hater PZ Myers once complained about.
I was my pleasure. If that info gets you somewhere, good bad or both, I'll be glad if you drop me a message. Meanwhile if you listen to podcasts, I can only recommend FDR.
It's interesting you bring it up, PZ Myers complained in June, but Stef did interview in May with Erin Pizzey, the old activist for women's rights Wink

(06-08-2014 04:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay. So libertarianism (as a form of governance) is similar to totalitarianism too?
Libertarianism is NOT a form of governance.
If libertarianism is a form of governance, then atheism is a religion, off is a TV channel, nude is a kind of cloth, bald is a hair color, water is an alcoholic cocktail and not collecting stamps is a hobby. Sounds familiar? Wink

Libertarianism gets equated with market anarchism, because market coordinates the society where it actually needs coordinating (job market, goods and services market). The rest is freedom. Security and justice are just another kind of business that private companies could do better, if taxes weren't so high. (insurance companies, mediators, Dispute Resolution Organizations)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I like Hitchens' take on libertarianism
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

There is nothing I find redeeming about the right in terms of their politics and tactics. Ultimately that leaves me with one option, liberalism. And as it turns out, I agree with most of the political stances liberals take.
I have found it weird that it is greed to keep my money but it is not greed to vote to get me other people's money.

I like Pen Jillette's take on libertarianism.
[Image: libertarian+facebook+cover+penn+jillette.jpg]

(06-08-2014 02:31 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  While I myself am a big fan of Nietzsche too, Nietzsche was against everything.
Culturally, yes. But from my brief knowledge, he was for honesty, magnanimity and doing your own thing without being bogged down by popular opinion. Of course, when he wrote his popular book on Zarathustra, when Zarathustra decided to descend from the mountain to people, he called it joyfully path to self-destruction. Very honest from him, considering how people receive new ideas. I'd like to think that Nietzsche's specialty was shoveling away the false culture. But I don't share his nihilism in my own dabbling into philosophy.

If you were arguing from a minarchist point of view, I could take you seriously (although I would still disagree with you). But you are arguing for no government and and completely failed to explain how you intend to prevent people from initiating force. This whole don't-initiate-force-thing sounds great, but unless you can enforce it I don't see how your system could work.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Res Publica's post
06-08-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Ummmm. The spectrum you posted indicates that Libertarianism has government power so....I am really confused.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ummmm. The spectrum you posted indicates that Libertarianism has government power so....I am really confused.

He started this thread by arguing that he is against both the right and left. Now he is posting a diagram claiming that left=totalitarianism, right=anarchism.

This is blatantly wrong as monarchism is on the far-left in his diagram, while the left-right spectrum actually came about when those opposed to monarchism began sitting on the left.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:43 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 05:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ummmm. The spectrum you posted indicates that Libertarianism has government power so....I am really confused.

He started this thread by arguing that he is against both the right and left. Now he is posting a diagram claiming that left=totalitarianism, right=anarchism.

This is blatantly wrong as monarchism is on the far-left in his diagram, while the left-right spectrum actually came about when those opposed to monarchism began sitting on the left.

I'm just really confused right now as to how he is defining libertarianism, let alone what right and left mean in these contexts.

He posted a link to Penn Jillette, so I am assuming he is libertarian in a way similar to that (or maybe a little more Drew Careyish). If so, I've read most of Penn Jillette's book on it. I identified as a libertarian when I started reading it, and thanks to it I dumped that political ideology like it was hot.

The Penn quote is amusing, because while he claims he doesn't know what's best for everyone, he does think it would be best for everyone if government were more limited and individuals had more control everything without government oversight. Seems a bit....hypocritical.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 05:43 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  He started this thread by arguing that he is against both the right and left. Now he is posting a diagram claiming that left=totalitarianism, right=anarchism.

This is blatantly wrong as monarchism is on the far-left in his diagram, while the left-right spectrum actually came about when those opposed to monarchism began sitting on the left.

I'm just really confused right now as to how he is defining libertarianism, let alone what right and left mean in these contexts.

He posted a link to Penn Jillette, so I am assuming he is libertarian in a way similar to that (or maybe a little more Drew Careyish). If so, I've read most of Penn Jillette's book on it. I identified as a libertarian when I started reading it, and thanks to it I dumped that political ideology like it was hot.

The Penn quote is amusing, because while he claims he doesn't know what's best for everyone, he does think it would be best for everyone if government were more limited and individuals had more control everything without government oversight. Seems a bit....hypocritical.

No, Lumy is arguing that everyone that disagrees with him is on the far left if his chart. If you support any kind of government you are a jackbooted thug by Lumy's strawman. However that chart does bring up a good point Anarchy is an extreme end of the political spectrum and as we all know the extreme ends are disastrous. Democracy is in the middle a safe median and is demonstrably the best system.

(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
[+] 7 users Like Revenant77x's post
07-08-2014, 03:20 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2014 06:35 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 05:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm just really confused right now as to how he is defining libertarianism, let alone what right and left mean in these contexts.

He posted a link to Penn Jillette, so I am assuming he is libertarian in a way similar to that (or maybe a little more Drew Careyish). If so, I've read most of Penn Jillette's book on it. I identified as a libertarian when I started reading it, and thanks to it I dumped that political ideology like it was hot.

The Penn quote is amusing, because while he claims he doesn't know what's best for everyone, he does think it would be best for everyone if government were more limited and individuals had more control everything without government oversight. Seems a bit....hypocritical.
Well, there's the joke - what's the difference between a minarchist and anarchist? About half a year.
The truth is, USA was founded in a minarchistic way, it was the most slim and streamlined government anyone ever saw. This plus convenient isolated position led to the rise of American free market and wealth, at which point government took over and socialized the shit out of this all for the purpose of waging wars and printing money. Now it's the biggest government in the world, most violent, most in debt and with 25 % of world's prison population. Land of the free! The graph says truthfully that power always increases into totalitarian degree and then collapses violently into anarchy. But because violence (power) is present, people use it to fight who gets to start another government, in which the cycle starts again. I think Plato wrote something about it in his Republic.

Besides, every single thing that minarchists say government must exist for, I saw proven to be possible by non-violent market means. Minarchists and libertarians are on a good track, just keep moving. If anarchism is atheism, then minarchists are agnostics.

Yeah, Penn Jillette is a smartass, but the point with science is, science knows better and we trust in science if we want to call ourselves rational. He doesn't force people at gunpoint to make people obey science, he just writes books and makes videos.

(06-08-2014 05:36 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  If you were arguing from a minarchist point of view, I could take you seriously (although I would still disagree with you). But you are arguing for no government and and completely failed to explain how you intend to prevent people from initiating force. This whole don't-initiate-force-thing sounds great, but unless you can enforce it I don't see how your system could work.
You are placing an unrealistic demand here. You are assuming that government does prevent people from aggression and that is not true. Government only adds more and worse aggression on top of that. Government is the greatest form of violence. It is responsible for all wars in history and all drug crime.
Yes, government force prevents some people from aggression, but even the worst serial murderer won't kill as many people as die in a war in a single hour, because governments turns normal people into mass murderers, it's called soldier training.

Why are you so desperate to prevent people from initiating force, yet you propose the worst known solution, force? Why does there have to be an immediate, absolute, perfect solution forced on people from the outside? Don't you see that any enforced solutions are worse than the problem? I tell you, society needs a shitload of long term scientific prevention and then some normal, reasonable measures like private security, personal defense gadgets (I have one and I'd take my chances), insurance and penalties from DROs. And a generation or two must grow up without spanking and public schools. That's the only real solution. Power is a quick fix, but Plato knew that power is always snowballing as it goes downhill. And Plato lived fuckin' 2,000 years ago.
There is not enough time in the world for quick fixes.

This rap song is definitely NSFW and very graphic, but it's true, I've seen some of these cases on
http://www.policestateusa.com and back when the Occupy movement started. USA is getting weird. I definitely do not see things like this happening in Czech Republic, despite of recent riots against the Roma people. Nothing in Europe comes close, except Ukraine I guess, and Muslim riots in France and Britain. This is uniquely American, the police forces are becoming paramilitary. This kind of stuff costs a lot of money and USA has unpaid liabilities more than 1 million dollars per citizen. Looks like they're making even more debt to equip the police better for what is coming when Russia or China breaks off the dollar. Dollar is still a reserve currency for the world, but USA prints it relentlessly and this can not last forever.
http://guidetoprepping.com/shocking-stat...ice-force/

My point is, public security forces are NOT trustworthy. They and judges work for the same organization and you do NOT have an option to stop paying their salary from your taxes. They get paid no matter what they do. State police prevention of crime is worse than the actual crime. And you can not protest by stopping your dollar subscription to them. You can be a nice person all you want, but you send your money to armed thugs - and if you give any excuse to that, you excuse evil.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(07-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 05:47 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm just really confused right now as to how he is defining libertarianism, let alone what right and left mean in these contexts.

He posted a link to Penn Jillette, so I am assuming he is libertarian in a way similar to that (or maybe a little more Drew Careyish). If so, I've read most of Penn Jillette's book on it. I identified as a libertarian when I started reading it, and thanks to it I dumped that political ideology like it was hot.

The Penn quote is amusing, because while he claims he doesn't know what's best for everyone, he does think it would be best for everyone if government were more limited and individuals had more control everything without government oversight. Seems a bit....hypocritical.
Well, there's the joke - what's the difference between a minarchist and anarchist? About half a year.
The truth is, USA was founded in a minarchistic way, it was the most slim and streamlined government anyone ever saw. This plus convenient isolated position led to the rise of American free market and wealth, at which point government took over and socialized the shit out of this all for the purpose of waging wars and printing money. Now it's the biggest government in the world, most violent, most in debt and with 25 % of world's prison population. Land of the free! The graph says truthfully that power always increases into totalitarian degree and then collapses violently into anarchy. But because violence (power) is present, people use it to fight who gets to start another government, in which the cycle starts again. I think Plato wrote something about it in his Republic.

Besides, every single thing that minarchists say government must exist for, I saw proven to be possible by non-violent market means. Minarchists and libertarians are on a good track, just keep moving. If anarchism is atheism, then minarchists are agnostics.

Yeah, Penn Jillette is a smartass, but the point with science is, science knows better and we trust in science if we want to call ourselves rational. He doesn't force people at gunpoint to make people obey science, he just writes books and makes videos.

(06-08-2014 05:36 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  If you were arguing from a minarchist point of view, I could take you seriously (although I would still disagree with you). But you are arguing for no government and and completely failed to explain how you intend to prevent people from initiating force. This whole don't-initiate-force-thing sounds great, but unless you can enforce it I don't see how your system could work.
You are placing an unrealistic demand here. You are assuming that government does prevent people from aggression and that is not true. Government only adds more and worse aggression on top of that. Government is the greatest form of violence. It is responsible for all wars in history and all drug crime.
Yes, government force prevents some people from aggression, but even the worst serial murderer won't kill as many people as die in a war in a single hour, because governments turns normal people into mass murderers, it's called soldier training.

Why are you so desperate to prevent people from initiating force, yet you propose the worst known solution, force? Why does there have to be an immediate, absolute, perfect solution forced on people from the outside? Don't you see that any enforced solutions are worse than the problem? I tell you, society needs a shitload of long term scientific prevention and then some normal, reasonable measures like private security, personal defense gadgets (I have one and I'd take my chances), insurance and penalties from DROs. And a generation or two must grow up without spanking and public schools. That's the only real solution. Power is a quick fix, but Plato knew that power is always snowballing as it goes downhill. And Plato lived fuckin' 2,000 years ago.
There is not enough time in the world for quick fixes.

This rap song is definitely NSFW and very graphic, but it's true, I've seen some of these cases on
http://www.policestateusa.com and back when the Occupy movement started. USA is getting weird. I definitely do not see things like this happening in Czech Republic, despite of recent riots against the Roma people. Nothing in Europe comes close, except Ukraine I guess, and Muslim riots in France and Britain. This is uniquely American, the police forces are becoming paramilitary. This kind of stuff costs a lot of money and USA has unpaid liabilities more than 1 million dollars per citizen. Looks like they're making even more debt to equip the police better for what is coming when Russia or China breaks off the dollar. Dollar is still a reserve currency for the world, but USA prints it relentlessly and this can not last forever.
http://guidetoprepping.com/shocking-stat...ice-force/

My point is, public security forces are NOT trustworthy. They and judges work for the same organization and you do NOT have an option to stop paying their salary from your taxes. They get paid no matter what they do. State police prevention of crime is worse than the actual crime. And you can not protest by stopping your dollar subscription to them. You can be a nice person all you want, but you send your money to armed thugs - and if you give any excuse to that, you excuse evil.



Damn right I'm assuming that. Here in Canada we have a stable, democratic government and it is quite safe. I'l stick with my government rather than take my chances with anarchy.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2014 10:24 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(07-08-2014 09:09 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Damn right I'm assuming that. Here in Canada we have a stable, democratic government and it is quite safe. I'l stick with my government rather than take my chances with anarchy.
Yeah, I heard when Molyneux was saying, at least Canada doesn't wage any wars. And he said there is a certain pragmatism in that culture, in the past Canada made significant cuts to public budget that just no other bloated public sector ever did. (except Sweden relatively, it's not such a socialist paradise anymore).
But OK, so you don't want to have private security companies that will compete with each other to protect you better at a lower price, and that you can fire if you're not satisfied with them.
So you don't want to know outright if that mole on your shoulder might be a malignant cancer, you want to wait six months till you're scheduled for the socialized doctor.
You don't want to make twice as much money at least.
You don't want schools where young people are treated as persons and valued customers.

Whatever a band of poor-informed bureaucrats in isolated offices can do with their ham-handed decrees while treating you as their wallet, businessmen on the market can do better.
I get it. You don't trust yourself to make any kind of money ever, so you want the state to guarantee all the services for you. Well, I'm not so sure either. But I'd rather ask people to pay me for something while there is twice as much money in the private sector, than how things are today. That's the only way my study of economics make sense to me. I feel like these people behind Iron Curtain in 1989 before capitalism started, they didn't know if it's gonna work and all they had were just smuggled economics textbooks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: