NationStates Jolt Archive

First off,I am a Singaporean,just so that people know.Not really important though.

This is a message to all people of non-standard sexual orientations.

I am supportive of people who are proud of who they are.I know plenty of people who are homosexual and maintain my friendship with them,both male and female.

However,it is just tiring to encounter those that want to make the issue of their sexuality significant.

Accepted,you are homosexual.Live your life as you please,without hurting or bothering anyone.Most people can live with that.But some individuals cannot observe discretion in their matters.

I know you are of a different sexual orientation.Fine.Good for you.It is not my cup of tea.It doesn't affect me,as long as you don't try to 'hit' on me.Fine,you like to penetrate another persons anus or use your toungue on another womens genitals or do all sorts of other non-standard sexual actions,also fine.

However,you don't need to tell me about it and sound so happy about it.Okay,so you do it for recreation.I also don't really care.

However,what affects me is when you start parading it about,making loud noises,and going out of your way to bother me with your activities.I do not care to join a BDSM or 'watersports' group or a gay group or a lesbian group or whatever funny adverts ending up in my email.

I just want to be left alone to lead my own damn life without getting woken up at 4 am in the morning by my damn neighbour,who happens to be lesbian,screaming her orgasm through a concrete wall into my bedroom,no matter if it is muffled.

So,all the homosexuals and other orientations out there,good on ya,I seriously mean it.Have pride in who you are.But please,remember to observe discretion when you're doing whatever you're doing,and you don't need to be so open about it.Just leave the ever-suffering masses out of the way.

Cheers.

*Just to confirm my position on the issue,I really am indifferent to homosexuals,transsexuals,heterosexuals or any other orientation.I just wish either side would shut up and leave the people who don't care damn well alone and let us get on with their lives.

My approach to life is such:If it works,it works.You do it well,get the job done,leave and rest or do your own thing,live by your own code of honour or whatever philosophy,look after your friends and family,leave people alone as long as they don't disturb you,and basically live.Whether there is life after death or whether there is some sort of deity are esoteric questions,and I will not state my beliefs or evidence for the facts of either here,but either you will find find when you find out,or when you are dead.

Either way,the reason you exist?My reason is simple.Humans are here,because we are here.Deal with it and get on with what you want to do.

I agree. That's why, IMO, a lot of otherwise tolerant people shy away from homosexuals. I mean, I don't run around the street swinging my dick around and yelling "Straight Pride!"

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

Megh, as long as no one starts fucking in front of me (without my permission) then they can be anything they want. I honestly couldn't care less.

-snip-
You're right. We should ban public television.

So, who's coming to the next "Hetero-Pride" rally?

I couldn't care less if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, trisexual, sexual, etc....but I don't see the point in parading it around. With people all about "closing the gap" between sexual preference groups, surely rallies would widen the gap?

Allaina

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

Quick someone tell the evil moral decay HQ, Kravania is onto them! It's not simply that they have adopted a specific lifestyle, no they are EVIL and their so called 'parades' or 'rallies' are an elaborate scheme to spread moral decadence. Occasionally you hear someone blurt out "I'm a moral wrong-doer" before they quickly recover and say "I'm a homosexual", narrowly avoiding being found out. Clearly kravania is too smart for this

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.
You need to chill, bro. I know plenty of heterosexuals that are just as annoying for the same reason. My friend Mike, for instance. While I may tell him about getting together with a girl, he always seems to need to go into graphic detail about it. I hate when homosexuals or straight people do that shit.

I'm against it, but I won't shoot gay people, I think it is wrong still though. Let them do their nasty rituals, I won't interfere.

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.
Forgot your medication again?:p

I'm telling you that it's part of the Jewish conspiracy.

I agree. That's why, IMO, a lot of otherwise tolerant people shy away from homosexuals. I mean, I don't run around the street swinging my dick around and yelling "Straight Pride!"

I do.

I do.
That was you?

*snip*
I would try get through to you, were I able to. You seem too far lost though.

I'm against it, but I won't shoot gay people, I think it is wrong still though. Let them do their nasty rituals, I won't interfere.
Wrong according to your beliefs. At least you are harmless though.

"Non-standard?"

I wouldn't term it like that. Makes it sound like heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality isn't.

Maybe the typical heterosexual nuclear family, and the false and destructive assumptions that run at its heart, shouldn't be shoved in our faces.

Maybe the media should stop its typical assumption that gays and lesbians don't really exist, and not so that it can make money off stupid stereotypes.

And maybe all those who express discomfort at the evil homosexuals shoving their decadent lifestyles in their faces should stop discussing their dates, their husbands/wives, and how hot that member of the opposite sex over there is. Abstaining from public hand-holding, hugging, and kissing would be consistent, too.

I would try get through to you, were I able to. You seem too far lost though.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

"Non-standard?"

I wouldn't term it like that. Makes it sound like heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality isn't.

Maybe not "natural", but the majority, for all that counts for.

First off,I am a Singaporean,just so that people know.Not really important though.

This is a message to all people of non-standard sexual orientations.

I am supportive of people who are proud of who they are.I know plenty of people who are homosexual and maintain my friendship with them,both male and female.

However,it is just tiring to encounter those that want to make the issue of their sexuality significant.

Accepted,you are homosexual.Live your life as you please,without hurting or bothering anyone.Most people can live with that.But some individuals cannot observe discretion in their matters.

I know you are of a different sexual orientation.Fine.Good for you.It is not my cup of tea.It doesn't affect me,as long as you don't try to 'hit' on me.Fine,you like to penetrate another persons anus or use your toungue on another womens genitals or do all sorts of other non-standard sexual actions,also fine.

However,you don't need to tell me about it and sound so happy about it.Okay,so you do it for recreation.I also don't really care.

However,what affects me is when you start parading it about,making loud noises,and going out of your way to bother me with your activities.I do not care to join a BDSM or 'watersports' group or a gay group or a lesbian group or whatever funny adverts ending up in my email.

I just want to be left alone to lead my own damn life without getting woken up at 4 am in the morning by my damn neighbour,who happens to be lesbian,screaming her orgasm through a concrete wall into my bedroom,no matter if it is muffled.

So,all the homosexuals and other orientations out there,good on ya,I seriously mean it.Have pride in who you are.But please,remember to observe discretion when you're doing whatever you're doing,and you don't need to be so open about it.Just leave the ever-suffering masses out of the way.

Cheers.

I was afraid this would be in support of sexual orientation parades, I personally think its disgusting to parade about your sexual preferences. Just keep it to yourslef and everyone will be happier.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.
God told me otherwise. :)

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.
I rest my case.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

God wants you to spell I'm without an apostrophe? And in a place where it makes no grammatical sense?

You'll find on this forum respect comes with how clearly you express yourself. It sounds nitpicky, but trust me, it matters.

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

Yeah, stupid selfish people. Believing that they have the right to control their own lives - what insolence.

"Non-standard?"

I wouldn't term it like that. Makes it sound like heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality isn't.

But isn't it? Isn't that the whole point of having two different genders?

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

I find Catholics disgusting, with their wierd rituals and kiddy-fiddling ways. Responsible for a stupid amount of people dying of AIDs too. Wow, I hate catholics so much.

Maybe don't be so quick to judge others, since others will quickly do the same

But isn't it? Isn't that the whole point of having two different genders?
Natural means it occurs in nature. Among most animals there is a constant ratio of homosexuality. For humans it's at around 10%. From what is known on sexuality, it's innate, and perhaps even genetic. So yes, it is natural.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.
Actually I bet what really happened is that you were unhappy and maybe even self destructive and in religion you found a very structured environment that relieved you of the pressure of your decisions. Now you have no need to make moral choices in life because they have been made for you. Also, it curs your self esteem problems because you are now as good as anyone can be and better than the vast majority of "sinners." You can walk around and judge everyone by the standards given to you in your religious context and it helps you feel good about you to be able to feel better than others. I know your religions says not to judge, but that's just another reason why it is full of shit. The fact is it makes it impossible not to judge. For example, knowing that I am an atheist and that I do not believe that there is a God and that Jesus was just some Ghandi like dude who was rebelling against a Roman military dictatorship, is it not impossible for you to not to come to the conclusion that I am a sinner and that if I die before changing my mind I will go to Hell? :)

God wants you to spell I'm without an apostrophe? And in a place where it makes no grammatical sense?

You'll find on this forum respect comes with how clearly you express yourself. It sounds nitpicky, but trust me, it matters.
grammar nazis aint ne'er gonna respect ya no matter what ya do, so go 'head put an I where an A would better serve no harm done.

Maybe the typical heterosexual nuclear family, and the false and destructive assumptions that run at its heart, shouldn't be shoved in our faces.

Maybe the media should stop its typical assumption that gays and lesbians don't really exist, and not so that it can make money off stupid stereotypes.

And maybe all those who express discomfort at the evil homosexuals shoving their decadent lifestyles in their faces should stop discussing their dates, their husbands/wives, and how hot that member of the opposite sex over there is. Abstaining from public hand-holding, hugging, and kissing would be consistent, too.

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.

Once the churches and society stop treating homosexuals as deviants, they won't be getting in people's faces about it with their parades. Heterosexuality is accepted, so they have no need to blatantly tell the world that they're heterosexual and they aren't going anywhere. Once homosexuality is universally accepted, the homosexuals will stop flaunting it.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

I rest Europa's case as well.

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?
I have little taste for Communism/Marxism myself, so I have little to say on this. It's Engels by the way.


Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.
Prove it.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

Prove how homosexual families would damage society, rather than help homosexuals integrate into social norms.

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.

And we get personal. Beautiful.

Look, people on this thread have explained that actually homosexuality is natural (ie present in nature), and you ignore it. I don't exactly understand how the prescence of homosexuals stops children from being raised in homes by a loving mother and father, but whatever. You can make that claim, though it might be a bit helpful for you to actually substantiate it. Except, oh right, you can't. And I think it unlikely that homosexuals are pawns of the marxist agenda.

And we get personal. Beautiful.

Look, people on this thread have explained that actually homosexuality is natural (ie present in nature), and you ignore it. I don't exactly understand how the prescence of homosexuals stops children from being raised in homes by a loving mother and father, but whatever. You can make that claim, though it might be a bit helpful for you to actually substantiate it. Except, oh right, you can't. And I think it unlikely that homosexuals are pawns of the marxist agenda.
He is homosexual himself. Apparently, he has find salvation via misconstructions of the Bible.

I am homosexual, and no fan of Marxism in any form. In fact, I lean quite close to the Right. Although I don't think he sees rationality in any form.

He is homosexual himself. Apparently, he has find salvation via misconstructions of the Bible.

I am homosexual, and no fan of Marxism in any form. In fact, I lean quite close to the Right. Although I don't think he sees rationality in any form.

Which thread does he explain this on? This is more twisted than the Catholic Atheists! I want to hear what explanation he gives!

Which thread does he explain this on? This is more twisted than the Catholic Atheists! I want to hear what explanation he gives!
I cannot remember, although I think on the one entitled along the lines of whether or not you'd tolerate bisexuality.

Which thread does he explain this on? This is more twisted than the Catholic Atheists! I want to hear what explanation he gives!There's nothing much to hear. He's apparently a miserable little prick who wants to fuck his hand & kill his fellow "deviants".

Funny how all the homophobes, xenophobes & what-have-you's all come across as genocidal monsters.

I WAS a homosexual, I used to have relations (including sexual) with other men.

However, my Catholic Faith and my own political beliefs made me see my own errors.

I have since repented, I did receive support from my church with regards to this.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.
Maybe you will eventually realise you are never going to develop an attraction to women because sexuality is innate. Your goal is futile. Desist while you still can.

And by the way, a truly Christian church (be it Catholic or not), would not stop supporting you for being homosexual.

I WAS a homosexual, I used to have relations (including sexual) with other men.

However, my Catholic Faith and my own political beliefs made me see my own errors.

I have since repented, I did receive support from my church with regards to this.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.
I've gone from thinking you were a complete asshole to feeling very sorry for you. It must be hard to go through life with such a heavy cross to bear.

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Actually, I'm more influenced by queer theory and modern studies of human sexuality than I am by Marxist theories of gender, of which I am skeptical. I'm an existentialist philosophically, and that definitely plays its part.

Socialism won't end misogyny, it won't end homophobia, and it won't end the authoritarianism at the heart of many current romantic and reproductive arrangements.

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?

Who brainwashed me?

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

Why? Because you say so? Homosexuality occurs in nature, and it's innate in humans. It is most definitely natural.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.

The "natural order" of things and modern marriage are very different. Human beings are, by nature, only partially inclined to monogamy; neither adultery nor polygamy are "unnatural", and a society that accepts non-monogamous and non-traditional sexual relationships as legitimate, and permits their expression without the oppression and dishonesty that tends to go with them now, would be an improvement over the current one.

I've gone from thinking you were a complete asshole to feeling very sorry for you. It must be hard to go through life with such a heavy cross to bear.
It's very tempting to stop being a "deviant" and obey canonical church rules. I am happy I avoided this at a young age.

I WAS a homosexual, I used to have relations (including sexual) with other men.

However, my Catholic Faith and my own political beliefs made me see my own errors.

I have since repented, I did receive support from my church with regards to this.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.
like rupaul in "but i'm a cheerleader", you should open an exgay residential treatment center

I believe what causes all the angst in this case is the mixed messages being put forth. Homosexuals want to be treated just like everyone else on one hand, and OTOH, they want to show the world they're special. So let's make a decision, shall we? Either homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, in which case they should STFU about their sexuality, or they can proclaim themselves as special and incur the wrath of everyone else that thinks being special is bad.

I had a housemate for a while that was a transvestite. Not to get too much into specifics but they were someone that was physically male and mentally female. My thoughts on the matter were that I don't care if you like humping cocker spaniels as long as you pay your share of the rent.

Ok, so I'm in an irritable mood today. Sue me.:upyours:

I WAS a homosexual, I used to have relations (including sexual) with other men.

However, my Catholic Faith and my own political beliefs made me see my own errors.

I have since repented, I did receive support from my church with regards to this.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.

Please excuse me while I cough up a lung laughing.

You're gay. You'll always be gay. Unless something changes your biosystem.

I believe what causes all the angst in this case is the mixed messages being put forth. Homosexuals want to be treated just like everyone else on one hand, and OTOH, they want to show the world they're special. So let's make a decision, shall we? Either homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, in which case they should STFU about their sexuality, or they can proclaim themselves as special and incur the wrath of everyone else that thinks being special is bad.

Then "STFU" about your heterosexuality, too.

Maybe you will eventually realise you are never going to develop an attraction to women because sexuality is innate. Your goal is futile. Desist while you still can.

And by the way, a truly Christian church (be it Catholic or not), would not stop supporting you for being homosexual.

He might be a non-inborn homosexual. They certainly do exist.

I WAS a homosexual, I used to have relations (including sexual) with other men.

However, my Catholic Faith and my own political beliefs made me see my own errors.

I have since repented, I did receive support from my church with regards to this.

However, despite many efforts, I have yet to develop normal attractions to women, I still find men attractive, however I have now gone into abstinence and I stay away from other homosexuals, so I now keep myself away from sin.

Kravania: don't have children until you've completely accepted whatever sexuality you end up as. They'll need stability, rather than someone still struggling with their own identity. Don't make the mistake of thinking that getting married will make you suddenly stop being gay.

If you really want to go into heterosexuality, my advice is to ease into it slowly. The only thing abstinence can get you is asexuality. Try a few menages a trois, that sort of thing, and gradually ease women into an otherwise homosexual regimen. You'll develop a fetish by Pavlovian association.

He might be a non-inborn homosexual. They certainly do exist.
From what he has said, I sincerely doubt it.

Actually, I'm more influenced by queer theory and modern studies of human sexuality than I am by Marxist theories of gender, of which I am skeptical.

Socialism won't end misogyny, it won't end homophobia, and it won't end the authoritarianism at the heart of many current romantic and reproductive arrangements.



Who brainwashed me?



Why? Because you say so? Homosexuality occurs in nature, and it's innate in humans. It is most definitely natural.



The "natural order" of things and modern marriage are very different. Human beings are, by nature, only partially inclined to monogamy; neither adultery nor polygamy are "unnatural", and a society that accepts non-monogamous and non-traditional sexual relationships as legitimate, and permits their expression without the oppression and dishonesty that tends to go with them now, would be an improvement over the current one.
Actually, the entire concept of what is "natural" is just a construct. Everything that we experience exists within the "natural world" including flowers, homosexuals, uranium, desks, dogs, meteor shit, 4.6 litre V8s and keyboards.

Then "STFU" about your heterosexuality, too.

I don't recall mentioning what my sexual orientation was. It may be that is simply what you assumed it to be. Of course, we all know what happens when you assume something...

I believe what causes all the angst in this case is the mixed messages being put forth. Homosexuals want to be treated just like everyone else on one hand, and OTOH, they want to show the world they're special. So let's make a decision, shall we? Either homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, in which case they should STFU about their sexuality, or they can proclaim themselves as special and incur the wrath of everyone else that thinks being special is bad.


and them damn irishmen ought to get quietly drunk of st. patrick's day and not go prancing about the streets of every major city in the us in the middle of march....what are they american or irish ... they need to make up their whiskey sodden minds.

From what he has said, I sincerely doubt it.

His story makes it look unlikely that he isn't inborn, but it's certainly possible. Possibly he was even introduced to it by a priest.

His story makes it look unlikely that he isn't inborn, but it's certainly possible. Possibly he was even introduced to it by a priest.
Perhaps he should enlighten us then.

I don't recall mentioning what my sexual orientation was. It may be that is simply what you assumed it to be. Of course, we all know what happens when you assume something...

And if it wasn't, my point would still hold, just not regarding you specifically.

Gays and lesbians are not "special," except in the ways we all are; like everyone else they have the right to express their sexuality, and do not forfeit that right just because heterosexuals don't like it.

queer theory

What in God's name is that?

Never heard of it, but I have a suspicicion it's some mumbo-jumbo far-left 'theory' from the 1960s, much like all the other nonsense that came out with the 'New Left' in the late 1960s and 1970s.

authoritarianism at the heart of many current romantic and reproductive arrangements.

Right, reproducing our own species, for the purpose of survival is 'authoritarian'. You are even more insane than Pol Pot.

I do urge you to seek therapy, your only showing that Marxism is nothing but a mental illness.

Who brainwashed me?

However polluted your mind with this Marxist BS.

You will have to answer that one for me, I'm afraid.

The "natural order" of things and modern marriage are very different. Human beings are, by nature, only partially inclined to monogamy; neither adultery nor polygamy are "unnatural", and a society that accepts non-monogamous and non-traditional sexual relationships as legitimate, and permits their expression without the oppression and dishonesty that tends to go with them now, would be an improvement over the current one.

Evidence please. Real evidence, I won't tolerate any theories made by any Marxist/New Left 'intellectuals'

Human societies, with the exception of a few savage primitive tribes, have favoured monogamy.

and them damn irishmen ought to get quietly drunk of st. patrick's day and not go prancing about the streets of every major city in the us in the middle of march....what are they american or irish ... they need to make up their whiskey sodden minds.


I think the way it works is that if it involves drinking, then everyone's Irish.

Hmmm...

I wonder if people could use a similar excuse for gay pride parades?

What in God's name is that?

Never heard of it, but I have a suspicicion it's some mumbo-jumbo far-left 'theory' from the 1960s, much like all the other nonsense that cam out with the 'New Left' in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Science knows no political boundaries. There are scientific claims made by Dr LaVay that homosexuality is indeed innate. Look up his books on Amazon. Likewise, there have been studies on the effect of homosexual families on the institution of marriage more generally. I suggest looking into them.

Since when did you know you were gay?

Evidence please. Real evidence, I won't tolerate any theories made by any Marxist/New Left 'intellectuals'

so just evidence gathered and presented by non intellectuals.... mmmkay like studies done by.... uhmmm auto mechanics.... of course there is alot of bookwork in fixing the modern car.... so maybe hearsay gathered from day laborers, none of who are displaced college educated latinos or....

so just evidence gathered and presented by non intellectuals.... mmmkay like studies done by.... uhmmm auto mechanics.... of course there is alot of bookwork in fixing the modern car.... so maybe hearsay gathered from day laborers, none of who are displaced college educated latinos or....
He means intellectuals not linked to the Left or Marxism in any way. Right-wing, centre and completely non-political intellectuals do exist too you know.

What in God's name is that?

Never heard of it, but I have a suspicicion it's some mumbo-jumbo far-left 'theory' from the 1960s, much like all the other nonsense that cam out with the 'New Left' in the late 1960s and 1970s.


Right, reproducing our own species, for the purpose of survival is 'authoritarian'. You are even more insane than Pol Pot.

I do urge you to seek therapy, your only showing that Marxism is nothing but a mental illness.


However polluted your mind with this Marxist BS.

You will have to answer that one for me, I'm afraid.


Evidence please. Real evidence, I won't tolerate any theories made by any Marxist/New Left 'intellectuals'

Human societies, with the exception of a few savage primitive tribes, have favoured monogamy.

Queer theory, from what I understand of it, is study about how current concepts of gender shape our society and how arbitrary they are. It's newer than the 60s I believe.

Reproducing for the sake of reproducing is rather pointless. You reproduce because you're in a good situation to.

And again, Soheran is not even Marxist.

The people on this thread have pointed out the existence of real evidence. Various animals practice homosexuality. It occurs in nature.

The majority of human history (and most of the world pre-colonisation) counts as "a few tribes"?

And if it wasn't, my point would still hold, just not regarding you specifically.

Gays and lesbians are not "special," except in the ways we all are; like everyone else they have the right to express their sexuality, and do not forfeit that right just because heterosexuals don't like it.

I think what I am objecting to is the double standard. A bunch of women getting together to proclaim how much they enjoy sleeping with women is viewed as empowering while a bunch of guys getting together to proclaim how much they enjoy sleeping with women is vulgar.

I think on all sides, people are pretty much oblivious when actively engaged in PDA. It's about as acceptable as loud cell phone conversations.

He means intellectuals not linked to the Left or Marxism in any way. Right-wing, centre and completely non-political intellectuals do exist too you know.well yeah hacks and technocrats and nutty conspiracy theorists

well yeah hacks and technocrats and nutty conspiracy theorists
No. Intellectuals.

What in God's name is that?

Never heard of it, but I have a suspicicion it's some mumbo-jumbo far-left 'theory' from the 1960s, much like all the other nonsense that cam out with the 'New Left' in the late 1960s and 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

You would probably think such about it. It's more the philosophy that interests me than the biology, which I don't know enough about to have an opinion.

My Existentialist concept of self is the core of my thought on the subject, and I like queer theory because it plays into that.

Right, reproducing our own species, for the purpose of survival is 'authoritarian'. You are even more insane than Pol Pot.

That's not what I said.

I do urge you to seek therapy, your only showing that Marxism is nothing but a mental illness.

I'm not really a Marxist, for what it's worth. More of a libertarian socialist, influenced as much by anarchist currents as by Marxist ones.

However polluted your mind with this Marxist BS.

You will have to answer that one for me, I'm afraid.

That would be me.

Evidence please. Real evidence, I won't tolerate any theories made by any Marxist/New Left 'intellectuals'

Human societies, with the exception of a few savage primitive tribes, have favoured monogamy.

Well, the fact that whatever our societal disposition to monogamy, it's been a fantasy without exception (societal exceptions, not individual ones).

The reason is that it is against human nature, and we should have a society that recognizes that basic fact.

No. Intellectuals.

Like Libertarians. They're technically right-wing intellectuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

You would probably think such about it. It's more the philosophy that interests me than the biology, which I don't know enough about to have an opinion.

Biology might be more convincing a discipline in this regard though.

Like Libertarians. They're technically right-wing intellectuals.
Indeed. Amongst others of course.

PS: Not all Libertarians are right-wing. The main movement is and a lot of its intellectuals and proponents are, but there are Libertarian-left individuals.

while a bunch of guys getting together to proclaim how much they enjoy sleeping with women is vulgar.

That doesn't stop them. They don't "proclaim" it, because it's pretty much assumed in our society, but they do talk about it.

I think on all sides, people are pretty much oblivious when actively engaged in PDA. It's about as acceptable as loud cell phone conversations.

I mind loud cell phone conversations a whole lot more. For that matter, I mind all cell phone conversations a whole lot more.

I just read that Wiki article on Queer 'Theory'.

I have NEVER seen so much crap in my entire life.

The BDSM (whatever that stands for) section was insane.

I thought that the Khmer Rougue were the pinnacle of insanity, well those who came up with this Queer 'Theory' crap have now taken the Khmer Rougue's place for that.

It makes me sick that hardowrking people who suffer high taxes, have to pay the wages of these lunatic 'theorists', funny how all of these Marxist/far-left crackpots talk about how 'evil/authotiarian/oprressive/unjust' society is, yet they get paid their wages by the very state they hate.

Biology might be more convincing a discipline in this regard though.

Here's what I wrote:

Maybe the typical heterosexual nuclear family, and the false and destructive assumptions that run at its heart, shouldn't be shoved in our faces.

Existentialist concepts of freedom work just as well in support of that as biology does. In fact they work even better, because they don't rest on a subjective assumption of the value of what is "natural."

For what it's worth I do hold that modern biology supports my position, as I stated earlier, for reasons that anyone paranoid about the "decay of marriage" in our society should already understand.

I just read that Wiki article on Queer 'Theory'.

I have NEVER seen so much crap in my entire life.

The BDSM (whatever that stand for) section was insane.

I thought that the Khmer Rougue were the pinnacle of insanity, well those who came up with this Queer 'Theory' crap have now taken the Khmer Rougue's place for that.

It makes me sick that hardowrking people who suffer high taxes, have to pay the wages of these lunatic 'theorists', funny how all of these Marxist/far-left crackpots talk about how 'evil/authotiarian/oprressive/unjust' society is, yet they get paid their wages by the very state they hate.
As I thought, you would not be convinced by that theory. However, well respected biologists such as LaVay make powerful cases for homosexuality being innate. Sociologists, likewise, make useful inquiries into how it would affect the family, and have come to find that bringing homosexuality within societal norms by allowing civil union has done nothing to damage marriage, but instead helped homosexuals lead better lives. Now, you may blind yourself to this research, it is your choice. Yet do give it the benefit of the doubt.

I just read that Wiki article on Queer 'Theory'.

I have NEVER seen so much crap in my entire life.

The BDSM (whatever that stand for) section was insane.

I thought that the Khmer Rougue were the pinnacle of insanity, well those who came up with this Queer 'Theory' crap have now taken the Khmer Rougue's place for that.

It makes me sick that hardowrking people who suffer high taxes, have to pay the wages of these lunatic 'theorists', funny how all of these Marxist/far-left crackpots talk about how 'evil/authotiarian/oprressive/unjust' society is, yet they get paid their wages by the very state they hate.

You know, calling everyone who isn't you a Marxist is a marvelous way to gain respect, just saying.

And you seriously don't know what BDSM is?

I have NEVER seen so much crap in my entire life.

Not even over at the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/)?

Good, we at the International Bolshevik Conspiracy have progressed. :)

Here's what I wrote:


Existentialist concepts of freedom work just as well in support of that as biology does. In fact they work even better, because they don't rest on a subjective assumption of the value of what is "natural."

For what it's worth I do hold that modern biology supports my position, as I stated earlier, for reasons that anyone paranoid about the "decay of marriage" in our society should already understand.
And I am aware of this. However, not everyone takes to philosophy in such matters as easily as they do to biology. It is far more difficult to say that the philosopher is biased as opposed to a scientist who must follow rigid procedures.

Personally I regard philosophical argument as more substantive. However, I also realise that its persuasiveness in the face of bigots is often non-existent.

That doesn't stop them. They don't "proclaim" it, because it's pretty much assumed in our society, but they do talk about it.



I mind loud cell phone conversations a whole lot more. For that matter, I mind all cell phone conversations a whole lot more.

Well, let's stick with the cell phone conversations for now because that seems to be common ground. Why is it that cell phone conversations are annoying? I would say that it was because people are completely oblivious that they are annoying others and even if it is pointed out that they are annoying others, they shrug and go back to being annoying. What makes matters worse is that they get all bent out of shape when you start annoying them by expressing your annoyance.

It's a double standard thing: if one expects respect, then one should respect others.

You know, calling everyone who isn't you a Marxist is a marvelous way to gain respect, just saying.

The Wiki article highlights Queer 'Theorists' saying that BDSM is a good way to express yourself, it somehow breaks down 'oppression' as the participants can decide who gets dominated.

They say this is 'healthy' as in society, people are 'unfairly' ruled over, like for exapmple the wealthier sections of society over the poorer sections.

It's all Marxist babble, trying to destroy social order and fool people into thinking that leadership of those who are gifted with the ability to lead their societies need to be done away with.

PS: What is BDSM?

PS: What is BDSM?
Bondage & Discipline / Domination & Submission / Sadism & Masochism/ Slave and Master.

The Wiki article highlights Queer 'Theorists' saying that BDSM is a good way to express yourself, it somehow breaks down 'oppression' as the participants can decide who gets dominated.

They say this is 'healthy' as in society, people are 'unfairly' ruled over, like for exapmple the wealthier sections of society over the poorer sections.

It's all Marxist babble, trying to destroy social order and fool people into thinking that leadership of those who are gifted with the ability to lead their societies need to be done away with.

PS: What is BDSM?

BDSM is Bondage, Domination, Sadism, Masochism. It's not a very Marxist thing. Not everyone who dislikes the social order is Marxist. Some are just kinky.

BDSM is Bondage, Domination, Sadism, Masochism. It's not a very Marxist thing. Not everyone who dislikes the social order is Marxist. Some are just kinky.
I would find it more Nietzschean than anything else. It actually advocates a form of inequality and submission/domination. Very not Marxist.

Bondage & Discipline / Domination & Submission / Sadism & Masochism/ Slave and Master.

I really don't know where the human species is going.

If people do this stuff, could it be that Earth has already become Hell.

Think too much about what humans do and why, it can make you go insane.

Kravania, I love how you're equating everything you don't like with Communism.

Here's a novel thought: I can be both pro-gay, and even farther right wing than you are, all at the same time!

It boggles the mind, doesn't it.

I really don't know where the human species is going.
Nowhere for the time being. :)

If people do this stuff, could it be that Earth has already become Hell.
Perhaps it is Hell.

Think too much about what humans do and why, it can make you go insane.
You are rather naive, aren't you? I can't believe you've never heard of BDSM. How old are you?

Kravania, I love how you're equating everything you don't like with Communism.

Here's a novel thought: I can be both pro-gay, and even farther right wing than you are, all at the same time!
Indeed.

It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
If you can defend your position intellectually, it's hardly that mind-boggling.

I really don't know where the human species is going.

If people do this stuff, could it be that Earth has already become Hell.

Think too much about what humans do and why, it can make you go insane.

BDSM is old stuff. Queer theory is just a new philosophical take on it. And it's only the more extreme branches of queer theory that support BDSM.

It's all Marxist babble

PS: What is BDSM?

No further comment necessary.

It's not a very Marxist thing.

No, it's not. A good number of Old Left Marxists would have - and would still - condemn it as bourgeois decadence, the way they condemned feminism, homosexuality, multiculturalism, etc.

How old are you?

Im 23.

BDSM is old stuff. Queer theory is just a new philosophical take on it. And it's only the more extreme branches of queer theory that support BDSM.
It's even practised by heterosexuals, sometimes the man being the Master, sometimes the woman being the Mistress.

I really don't know where the human species is going.

If people do this stuff, could it be that Earth has already become Hell.

Think too much about what humans do and why, it can make you go insane.That must be why I can't emphasise with you. I'm just not insane enough to rationalise mass murder & suicide.

Don't let that stop you from the suicide thing though.

No, it's not. A good number of Old Left Marxists would have - and would still - condemn it as bourgeois decadence, the way they condemned feminism, homosexuality, multiculturalism, etc.
It astonishes me that they could actually condemn all these movements and at the same time find it shocking that their own movement has been torn to shreds.

Im 23.
And you've really never heard of it? Odd. I am 19, and I knew of it since being 17.

It astonishes me that they could actually condemn all these movements and at the same time find it shocking that their own movement has been torn to shreds.Well... Some of them weren't all that keen on women's rights either, back in the day.

Well... Some of them weren't all that keen on women's rights either, back in the day.
Yet they say that prejudice is limited to the Right...

It's even practised by heterosexuals, sometimes the man being the Master, sometimes the woman being the Mistress.

Heck, it's usually practiced by heterosexuals. Bigger market, after all.

Well, let's stick with the cell phone conversations for now because that seems to be common ground. Why is it that cell phone conversations are annoying? I would say that it was because people are completely oblivious that they are annoying others and even if it is pointed out that they are annoying others, they shrug and go back to being annoying. What makes matters worse is that they get all bent out of shape when you start annoying them by expressing your annoyance.

It's a double standard thing: if one expects respect, then one should respect others.

They are indeed annoying, but that's my problem, not theirs, unless they're in a car (in which case public displays of affection - or any displays of affection - would also be innappropriate.)

I hate the influence of cell phones on society more than I do their actual use, and if I were consistent I would probably hate e-mail for similar reasons.

It astonishes me that they could actually condemn all these movements and at the same time find it shocking that their own movement has been torn to shreds.

They despised class privilege, but were content to keep their straight male privilege, and to a lesser degree their white privilege as well. Though even the Old Left Marxists were far more courageous on issues like civil rights and anti-racism than pretty much any other organized political grouping was.

I would like to ask any homosexual posters, if they ever tried to leave homosexuality?

Either through the work of the Chruch or other institutions?

They despised class privilege, but were content to keep their straight male privilege, and to a lesser degree their white privilege as well. Though even the Old Left Marxists were far more courageous on issues like civil rights and anti-racism than pretty much any other organized political grouping was.
Making them comparatively liberal. Either way, politics and ideologies have come a long way since, both on Right and Left.

I would like to ask any homosexual posters, if they ever tried to leave homosexuality?

Either through the work of the Chruch or other institutions?
I had contemplated it for years, and I had even tried shifting my attraction to girls. It was futile. You cannot cease being homosexual if you are born so. It is a revolt against your very nature. The Church cannot change this. You can become celibate and asexual, but beyond this the Church does not possess any means of making you heterosexual. Other institutions even less so. Some believe hypnotherapy can do so. It cannot. It can delude you into thinking you're heterosexual.

Well then, given my age, I have many decades of celibacy ahead for me.

It's been a painfully hard effort for 18 months, so far.

But does not Faith in God require sacrifice?

Well then, given my age, I have many decades of celibacy ahead for me.

It's been a painfully hard effort for 18 months, so far.

But does not Faith in God require sacrifice?
Not if that sacrifice is in vein. I have a huge respect for the Catholic Church, despite its transgressions. And despite the vile venom some Christians (and other religions) spit out at homosexuals, I can still retain faith in God, and more specifically Christ. You must realise the Bible is a tool for manipulation. Jesus Himself never suggested one should be intolerant. Quite the opposite.

Yet they say that prejudice is limited to the Right...What? Who?

I'm not free from prejudice. I'll merrily curb neo-Nazi's, given half a chance. I've occationally flung myself head-first into fights with loudmouth homophobes. I've kicked the shit out of tons of people who just couldn't tolerate seeing a guy with a mohawk.

I rarely start fights, and I don't always win, but I'd much rather give it a shot than just "tolerate" people's shit.

In fact, I'm so full of prejudice that I automatically dislike 90% of everyone. It's a mutual thing though.

Making them comparatively liberal. Either way, politics and ideologies have come a long way since, both on Right and Left.

They have. I just find it interesting, especially considering the demonization Communists get these days.

The CPUSA was really a decent organization until it disgraced itself by holding too closely to the Moscow line in the late thirties and early forties. It hasn't recovered since, and probably doesn't deserve to.

They have. I just find it interesting, especially considering the demonization Communists get these days.

The CPUSA was really a decent organization until it disgraced itself by holding too closely to the Moscow line in the late thirties and early forties. It hasn't recovered since, and probably doesn't deserve to.
Let's just say I have little respect for Marxists in general. I have always leaned more towards the Right, especially now that I am liberal-libertarian.

Well then, given my age, I have many decades of celibacy ahead for me.

It's been a painfully hard effort for 18 months, so far.

But does not Faith in God require sacrifice?

Did you notice my suggestion earlier in the thread? I think it might work, and for someone who seems to value eventually reproducing it'd be a damn sight better than celibacy.

In fact, I'm so full of prejudice that I automatically dislike 90% of everyone. It's a mutual thing though.
I come across as a lovely, well-mannered lad, but it's a facade of mine. I actually dislike most humans. Felines though are another story. :)

Did you notice my suggestion earlier in the thread? I think it might work, and for someone who seems to value eventually reproducing it'd be a damn sight better than celibacy.You're not seriously urging that guy to reproduce, are you?! I never thought I'd say this, but think of the children!

Did you notice my suggestion earlier in the thread? I think it might work, and for someone who seems to value eventually reproducing it'd be a damn sight better than celibacy.
Or he could accept his innate sexuality and realise that it is not in truth contradictory to Christianity.

Did you notice my suggestion earlier in the thread?

What suggestion?

You're not seriously urging that guy to reproduce, are you?! I never thought I'd say this, but think of the children!

Not until he gets his issues sorted out, don't worry. My point is more that if he really, really wanted to actually be hetero, there are theoretically ways.

Not until he gets his issues sorted out, don't worry. My point is more that if he really, really wanted to actually be hetero, there are theoretically ways.
Hopefully he'll realise that suppressing his natural sexuality is counter-productive.

You're not seriously urging that guy to reproduce, are you?! I never thought I'd say this, but think of the children!

Fuck you!

This coming from some street thug who thinks some ugly hairstyle makes him look 'subversive', when it only makes you look like a fool who wastes his own life and does not want to grow up.

What suggestion?

Menages a trois. Have some bi guy guide you on the way to enjoying girls, starting with experiences involving a guy and a girl. Eventually you come to associate the two, Pavlovian style. It won't be complete, but it'll be something.

Let's just say I have little respect for Marxists in general. I have always leaned more towards the Right, especially now that I am liberal-libertarian.I have a sort of love-hate thing going with those guys. Marxists are usually very, very well-meaning people. Sort of like people who believes that if we could just find some really, really virtuous guy & stick him on a throne, everything would be alright & everyone would get along.

I admire their intentions, but I'm not at all keen on seeing them try it.

I'm more of an anarchist myself, so I can appreciate your libertarian ideas. Like you, I don't think any man is fit to rule another.

I'm more of an anarchist myself, so I can appreciate your libertarian ideas. Like you, I don't think any man is fit to rule another.
Indeed. I am more of an anarcho-capitalist, so we may differ in that regard, I am not sure. Either way, it will be a long time before anarchism ever takes sway, so for the time being I am only hoping that we can help rein in the State.

I have a sort of love-hate thing going with those guys. Marxists are usually very, very well-meaning people. Sort of like people who believes that if we could just find some really, really virtuous guy & stick him on a throne, everything would be alright & everyone would get along.

Essentially a benevolent form of elective Monarchy. Were it only possible.

Fuck you!

This coming from some street thug who thinks some ugly hairstyle makes him look 'subversive', when it only makes you look like a fool who wastes his own life and does not want to grow up.Mate, you've been proclaiming how I'm not fit to live. Did you seriously believe I'd think you a fit parent, when you're promoting that kind of murderous hate? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you ate your own offspring.

I have a sort of love-hate thing going with those guys. Marxists are usually very, very well-meaning people. Sort of like people who believes that if we could just find some really, really virtuous guy & stick him on a throne, everything would be alright & everyone would get along.

I admire their intentions, but I'm not at all keen on seeing them try it.

That sounds more like Leninists, not Marxists per se, and pretty elitist Leninists at that. They do exist, but even the Trotskyists these days tend to be more sensible than that, and the Stalinists can just be ignored.

That sounds more like Leninists, not Marxists per se, and pretty elitist Leninists at that. They do exist, but even the Trotskyists these days tend to be more sensible than that, and the Stalinists can just be ignored.
I sympathise more with Leninists than any other group of the Left, yet still it's a group I have little in common with. Perhaps the only thing I do share is that I don't find wealth to be what ennobles an individual. It is merely a catalyst.

I sympathise more with Leninists than any other group of the Left, yet still it's a group I have little in common with. Perhaps the only thing I do share is that I don't find wealth to be what ennobles an individual. It is merely a catalyst.

Why do you sympathize with Leninists?

Why do you sympathize with Leninists?
Because they were nowhere as warped as Stalin and his followers later. Even though I am elitist, and to a degree anti-egalitarian, I have an admiration for Lenin himself. I never quite liked Trotsky or his followers either.

Mate, you've been proclaiming how I'm not fit to live. Did you seriously believe I'd think you a fit parent, when you're promoting that kind of murderous hate? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you ate your own offspring.

Hate, thats rich coming from an anarchist.

Remeber the Nardoniks/People's Will?

Yes, those terrorists who not only killed one of the Tsars of Russia, but started an armed revolt in Russia and gave inspiration to the gangsters who led the Bolshevik Party to power and thus casuing the largest genocide in human histroy.

Fascism may sometimes advocate the killing of anti-Nation elements, but Marxism/Anarchism advocates killing their OWN countrymen.

Hitler killed mainly non-Germans.

Stalin killed only Russians.

At least if Fascists do kill, it's not their own countrymen.

At the end of the day, ALL political ideologies have killed in their quest for their own values being imposed on society.

Even democracy does it, look at Iraq.

Besides, given that your an anarchist, care to explain the hate that those anarchist criminals showed when they burned nuns and preists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

General Franco was too soft on the anarchist IMO, he gave some of them imprisonment, I would have killed the lot.

That sounds more like Leninists, not Marxists per se, and pretty elitist Leninists at that. They do exist, but even the Trotskyists these days tend to be more sensible than that, and the Stalinists can just be ignored.It'd sound like Stalinists, I think. That's what I was comparing them to. The idea is the same in essence, there's just a bit more to Marxism. The comparison was for the sake of brevity.

The totalitarian thing with Marxists are usually understood to be a temporary phase before the communist ideal. I just don't think it's a step in the right direction... We've only spend the history of the species ridding ourselves of totalitarian rule, so..

Kra-something, maybe you should look up (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/) what anarchism is, instead of making random assertions.

I sympathise more with Leninists than any other group of the Left, yet still it's a group I have little in common with. Perhaps the only thing I do share is that I don't find wealth to be what ennobles an individual. It is merely a catalyst.
i was a leninist and all i can say is my antiauthoritarian side always rankled at the concept of party discipline. sure it may have been a necessity under the repression of tzarist russia, but it make it an inherent political good and a key part of all party structure around the world just seemed like a terrible mistake.

*snip*
Please, do yourself a favour and read up on libertarianism and its versions of anarchism before criticising it. The aforementioned instances have nothing to do with it. Anarcho-capitalism in fact in many cases praises high culture.

i was a leninist and all i can say is my antiauthoritarian side always rankled at the concept of party discipline. sure it may have been a necessity under the repression of tzarist russia, but it make it an inherent political good and a key part of all party structure around the world just seemed like a terrible mistake.
Ridding of Government entirely may be one of the most mind-boggling questions humanity is ever to face.

Please, do yourself a favour and read up on libertarianism and its versions of anarchism before criticising it. The aforementioned instances have nothing to do with it. Anarcho-capitalism in fact in many cases praises high culture.

I diagree.

Without strong leaders, human societies begin a process of social collapse and decay. Crime, terrorism, civil unrest, civil war, corruption, all of these have grown under democracy.

Humans need leaders to guide them and to show them how to develop themselves.

Without that, humanity would eventually become extinct.

Anarchism/libertarianism/minarchism all go against humna nature.

You could never convince me of the need to give people the ability to decide things for themselves, as most people are not worthy of such responsibility.

So, who's coming to the next "Hetero-Pride" rally?

I couldn't care less if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, trisexual, sexual, etc....but I don't see the point in parading it around. With people all about "closing the gap" between sexual preference groups, surely rallies would widen the gap?

Allaina

Don't forget buysexuals and trysexuals....

*snip*
Have you ever actually read any libertarian works? Keep in mind, high feudalism is a form of ultra-minimal Monarchy. It lasted from 1000-1700. Likewise, aristocratic city-states also lasted long and prospered. Minarchism and anarchism are not a revolt against nature as you might think. They are embracing it.

Because they were nowhere as warped as Stalin and his followers later. Even though I am elitist, and to a degree anti-egalitarian, I have an admiration for Lenin himself. I never quite liked Trotsky or his followers either.

Trotskyism is a strain of Leninism. I was just wondering why you mentioned Leninism instead of, say, anarchism, or council communism, or any of the other varieties of libertarian socialism.

i was a leninist and all i can say is my antiauthoritarian side always rankled at the concept of party discipline. sure it may have been a necessity under the repression of tzarist russia, but it make it an inherent political good and a key part of all party structure around the world just seemed like a terrible mistake.

It was, and that "democratic centralist" model, along with the Leninist vanguard, is why I will never be a Leninist.

The totalitarian thing with Marxists are usually understood to be a temporary phase before the communist ideal. I just don't think it's a step in the right direction... We've only spend the history of the species ridding ourselves of totalitarian rule, so..

Regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat, think the Paris Commune, not Leninist Russia. The system is meant to be highly democratic; the only distinction between it and the eventual utopia is the existence of a state apparatus - strictly under popular control - to restrain the capitalists.

Anarchists, in fact, advocate pretty much the same thing, only they would probably call for swifter expropriation and a more decentralized model at the end. They just don't consider the dictatorship of the proletariat's rifles to be the equivalent of a state.

Trotskyism is a strain of Leninism. I was just wondering why you mentioned Leninism instead of, say, anarchism, or council communism, or any of the other varieties of libertarian socialism.
To be honest, I am more bent to anarcho-capitalism. I plan on reading up on libertarian socialism as well. Obviously, I empathise more with it than any form of statist communism.

Kra-something, maybe you should look up what anarchism is, instead of making random assertions.

I saw that website, nothing but far-left propaganda, the website should be closed down.

Now respond to my points on the mass killings done by anarchists in Spain.

Im not interested in your websites, I see anarchism for what it really is, in practice in the real world.

Have you ever actually read any libertarian works?

No and have no intention of either.

I know the arguements libertarians put across and they make no sense.

I have better things to do than waste time with failed ideologies.

I saw that website, nothing but far-left propaganda, the website should be closed down.

Now respond to my points on the mass killings done by anarchists in Spain.

Im not interested in your websites, I see anarchism for what it really is, in practice in the real world.
Leftist? How is Liberal-libertarianism leftist?


No and have no intention of either.

I know the arguements libertarians put across and they make no sense.

I have better things to do than waste time with failed ideologies.
It's never failed to begin with, because it's never been put in practice, neither anarcho-capitalism nor anarcho-socialism. Sure, there have been rare instances where anarcho-capitalism existed, but they didn't last long (and not due to their failure, but the emergence of nation-States). Ultra-minimal states, however, did exist for extended periods of time. Longer than any current statist government. I implore you to read up on it.

It was, and that "democratic centralist" model, along with the Leninist vanguard, is why I will never be a Leninist.



.yes, i actually should have said democratic centrism instead of the vaguer term of party discipline. the vanguard concept seems more ambigious to me. sure it seems elitist but without some sort of the relationship between a hard core relovutionary cadre and the militant mass of people in a prerevolutionary situation you seem likely to always be channelled back into reformist or parlimentary lines by the organized forces of moderation within the broad movement...


man i had a flashback to 1990... oh well the dangers of getting old.

yes, i actually should have said democratic centrism instead of the vaguer term of party discipline. the vanguard concept seems more ambigious to me. sure it seems elitist but without some sort of the relationship between a hard core relovutionary cadre and the militant mass of people in a prerevolutionary situation you seem likely to always be channelled back into reformist or parlimentary lines by the organized forces of moderation within the broad movement...

If that's the case then you're prematurely launching the revolution. You don't launch it until the majority is behind you; otherwise your "hard core revolutionary cadre" just becomes another elitist minority ruling class with spectator democracy. If the majority is indeed behind your revolution then you don't need to worry about reformism, unless the party is indeed elitist and the elite is reformist.

Lenin couldn't have designed an ideology more deserving of Bakunin's attack on Marxism if he had tried.

Edit: And you aren't really launching the revolution at all, the proletariat is, with the party being part of the revolution, not its leadership.

I saw that website, nothing but far-left propaganda, the website should be closed down.Propaganda? Mate.. It's a bloody FAQ about anarchism in various forms. It's no more propaganda than a cookbook.Now respond to my points on the mass killings done by anarchists in Spain.Nope. Go visit a library.Im not interested in your websites, I see anarchism for what it really is, in practice in the real world.So you're in touch with various anarchist communities in the real world? I'm impressed. No I don't actually believe you. But feel free to tell me which ones.

If you were in contact with various anarchist initivs around the world, you'd find they're fairly consistent with what that FAQ thingy talks about.No and have no intention of either.Ignorance is bliss, eh.I know the arguements libertarians put across and they make no sense.Why don't you enlighten us, then?I have better things to do than waste time with failed ideologies.Define failed. Fascism is a failed ideology, in my opinion. Every time it's been attempted, it's resulted in nothing but bloody mayhen, oppression & poverty.

Libertarianism have no such track record. Liberals of today enjoy widespread success in most democratic societies. They usually don't wage war on their peoples.

Reading Kravania's responses in this thread, I've been trying so hard not to laugh.

Anarchism/libertarianism/minarchism all go against humna nature.
You say this, except you're following a path to go against your own human nature, by using the ever-so-useful "fingers in the ears" approach to your own sexuality and ignoring it?

My my, you are a confused one. Hypocritical, too.

OK, just to answer to something I saw early in the thread:

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.
Excuse me, I must go and laugh my head off a bit.

OK, I'm done.

Seriously, do you even believe your own shit? Man, whatever you're smoking, I want some. Homosexuals can't recruit people. Your sexuality comes about due to your emotional and physical development. I don't know what causes someone to be hetero-, bi-, or homosexual, and I don't really care at this point in time, but you can't just change it like a switch. You can't wake up one morning and say "Oh, I'm going to be gay today", and then go out and find yourself attracted to men, if you weren't gay to begin with.

It just doesn't work that way.

Something I find rather ironic, though: you're intending to follow a life of celibacy, which would have the same effect on the human population (and the gene pool, for that matter) than if you would accept the fact that you're gay and live your life. You're already messed up enough evidently, but if you continue to deny who you are, you are going to be fucked royally by the time you reach 30.

I pity you, really.

If that's the case then you're prematurely launching the revolution. You don't launch it until the majority is behind you; otherwise your "hard core revolutionary cadre" just becomes another elitist minority ruling class with spectator democracy. If the majority is indeed behind your revolution then you don't need to worry about reformism, unless the party is indeed elitist and the elite is reformist.

Lenin couldn't have designed an ideology more deserving of Bakunin's attack on Marxism if he had tried.

Edit: And you aren't really launching the revolution at all, the proletariat is, with the party being part of the revolution, not its leadership.
i don't know, there is always a great deal of fluidity and rapid swings in political consciousness during a revolutionary situation. if you aren't ready to jump in and push hard for your ideals someone else certainly will. the great flaw in your approach is accepting the rather dubious assumption of marx about historical inevitability. i think moments of great opportunity for change come along periodically, but there is no certainty what they will actually produce. what actually transpires is determined by the characters on the stage at the time and how well they play their parts.

i don't know, there is always a great deal of fluidity and rapid swings in political consciousness during a revolutionary situation. if you aren't ready to jump in and push hard for your ideals someone else certainly will. the great flaw in your approach is accepting the rather dubious assumption of marx about historical inevitability. i think moments of great opportunity for change come along periodically, but there is no certainty what they will actually produce. what actually transpires is determined by the characters on the stage at the time and how well they play their parts.
No doubt. However, Soheran is right. A revolution will best succeed when it has majority support and is done as quietly, tactfully and diplomatically as possible. If it is done in the form of a rush, the State will crush it, declare that it was protecting its citizens, and further strengthen its power. Hardly a desirable situation.

Propaganda? Mate.. It's a bloody FAQ about anarchism in various forms. It's no more propaganda than a cookbook.

It's from an ANARCHIST website, not a impartial one.

Of course those criminals who wrote that website are going to give a nice yet false picture of what anarchism is.

Even if the 'theory' of anarchism were to be put into practice, I'd oppose it, for I detest the idea of a world without a wise and superior authority that corrects human error and ensures that human society is run in a effecient and secure manner.

Thats why I detest democracy, humans have no rights other than to be ruled.

Nope. Go visit a library.

I already now of the anarchist genocide in Spain.

I suggest you read some IMPARTIAL books on what the anarchist death squads did in Spain.

So you're in touch with various anarchist communities in the real world? I'm impressed. No I don't actually believe you. But feel free to tell me which ones.

If you were in contact with various anarchist initivs around the world, you'd find they're fairly consistent with what that FAQ thingy talks about.

Somalia is what anarchism looks like in reality.

Iraq is now heading on that path as well.

Define failed. Fascism is a failed ideology, in my opinion. Every time it's been attempted, it's resulted in nothing but bloody mayhen, oppression & poverty.

Fascism did not fail.

In peacetime, Germany and Italy were the most secure and prosperous nations in pre-war Europe.

War destroyed them, thanks to Bolshevik gangsterism from Stalin and the terrorists who killed Axis forces, such as the French 'Resistance' and the terrorists of Tito in Yugoslavia, along with Zionist ruled Britian and America.

I bet you that had WW2 not occured, the Germany would be National Socialist and Italy Fascist today.

The Allies destroyed Fascism for they feared it, it was to successful a system and they wanted to crush it before it could spread.

Anarchism has failed and never even managed to exist for a long time.

Every time it comes into being, it collapses in conflict and mass murder.

It's from an ANARCHIST website, not a impartial one.

Of course those criminals who wrote that website are going to give a nice yet false picture of what anarchism is.

Even if the 'theory' of anarchism were to be put into practice, I'd oppose it, for I detest the idea of a world without a wise and superior authority that corrects human error and ensures that human society is run in a effecient and secure manner.

Thats why I detest democracy, humans have no rights other than to be ruled.
What makes you think that an elite will not exist in anarchy to act as an example for the rest? It will not rule others as subjects, but it can lead by example. And by the way, if humans have no rights other than being ruled, then what gives the rulers the right to rule?

Anarchism has failed and never even managed to exist for a long time.

Every time it comes into being, it collapses in conflict and mass murder.
So when did the city states of Italy or the European feudal kingdoms (as an example of minarchism) collapse into mass murder? They did not. America was also quite fine as a form of anarcho-capitalism before it formed into a nation. These entities were gradually consumed by emerging States.

the anarchist genocide in spain... lol... is that like the armenian genocide of the turks or the jewish slaughter of the nazi innocents.

No doubt. However, Soheran is right. A revolution will best succeed when it has majority support and is done as quietly, tactfully and diplomatically as possible. If it is done in the form of a rush, the State will crush it, declare that it was protecting its citizens, and further strengthen its power. Hardly a desirable situation.Revolutions are bad ideas. They almost never accomplish anything other than a spectacular bodycount.

Education, borderline behaviour & participation in government, is the way to accomplish one's goals. No-one is convinced by death threats & imprisonment. I'll not become any less bisexual just because the local Fascist Catholic wants to kill me. In fact, all it accomplishes, is to make me view him & his kin as threats, threats I'll need to neutralise.

Violence breeds violence.

Revolutions are bad ideas. They almost never accomplish anything other than a spectacular bodycount.

Education, borderline behaviour & participation in government, is the way to accomplish one's goals. No-one is convinced by death threats & imprisonment. I'll not become any less bisexual just because the local Fascist Catholic wants to kill me. In fact, all it accomplishes, is to make me view him & his kin as threats, threats I'll need to neutralise.

Violence breeds violence.
Exactly. Which is why any revolution would have to be a diplomatic one. Although Hitler is an unusual source of wisdom, the notion of "Legal revolution" comes to mind.

Revolutions are bad ideas. They almost never accomplish anything other than a spectacular bodycount.

Education, borderline behaviour & participation in government, is the way to accomplish one's goals. No-one is convinced by death threats & imprisonment. I'll not become any less bisexual just because the local Fascist Catholic wants to kill me. In fact, all it accomplishes, is to make me view him & his kin as threats, threats I'll need to neutralise.

Violence breeds violence. unfortunately at its base a government is just organized and codified violence, any attempt to fundimentally alter it or destroy it runs the risk of unleashing that violence.

It's from an ANARCHIST website, not a impartial one.

Of course those criminals who wrote that website are going to give a nice yet false picture of what anarchism is.Why false?Even if the 'theory' of anarchism were to be put into practice, I'd oppose it, for I detest the idea of a world without a wise and superior authority that corrects human error and ensures that human society is run in a effecient and secure manner.

Thats why I detest democracy, humans have no rights other than to be ruled.This is where the aliens come in, right?I already now of the anarchist genocide in Spain.I should like to hear about it then. Your fabrications are hillarious :) I suggest you read some IMPARTIAL books on what the anarchist death squads did in Spain.You'll have to tell me which ones are impartial, I'm afraid.Somalia is what anarchism looks like in reality.Eh?Iraq is now heading on that path as well.Oh.. You think anarchism is another word for war! OK. That sort of explains your strange musings, but it leaves me wondering all the same.. I thought you were all for war & the eradication of dissidents. If I got your definition right, that'd make you an anarchist, right?

By the way, I don't think anyone but your WP bretheren will agree with your presentation of the history of fascism.

unfortunately at its base a government is just organized and codified violence, any attempt to fundimentally alter it or destroy it runs the risk of unleashing that violence.
Exactly. As well as organised and codified ex-propriation. Revolting against it will be perceived as a threat to the nation (hence, emotions of national unity will be evoked), and subsequently crushed, leading the State to seem like the defender and further expand its powers.

First of all, how did we get from gay pride parades to a big debate about nazis, communism, marxism, etc. ?

Second of all, to the individual who claims to be turning away from homosexuality: if this is what you honestly believe you need to do to be happy, then I truely want to wish you the best of luck. While I don't necessarily believe that a person's sexuality is something that we can just pick and choose from, you have at least found a church that is supportive and still allows you to be a member of their congregation. Sadly, my own church that I was actively involved in asked me to leave after they discovered that I am gay because they thought I would be a "bad influence" on the younger generation. :( In my own life, I grew up always being told how gay people were vile and should be avoided. I ended up hating myself, becoming severly depressed, and at times contemplated suicide. It's only been in recent years that I've came to love and accept myself, and now I am a much happier and emotionally healthy person.

Finally, I find PDAs, from both gay and straight couples to be vomit-inducing. The old jr. high line of "Get a room!" comes to mind.
Anyway, I think that the idea of a gay parade is a great one, because it allows us to be seen and not have to be afraid of being attacked, killed, raped, spit upon, etc. However, I do have a few issues with how pride parades are organized. As a gay man, I believe that these parades tend to reinforce the stereotypes that make it difficult for the gay community to be taken seriously. At the pride parades I've seen, it always seems to just be a parade of drag queens and guys in short shorts. Granted, I don't mind these things when I'm dancing at a club on a Saturday night, but that doesn't mean I want to see it spill into the streets. This just gives ammunition to all the Pat Robertson types out there, just eager to pounce on the gay community at any chance they get. Coupled with the stereotypes found on TV, that portray all gay people as overtly flamely (ex. Jack from "Will & Grace"), weak sissies (Xander on "Drawn Together"), and promiscuous (Brian from the American version of "Queer as Folk"), mainstream America tends to have a difficult time taking its gay citizens seriously. I think that pride parades need to reflect the entire gay community, because we are doctors, and lawyers, and business people, and professors, and parents, and every other type of worker as our hetero counter parts. We're not all drag queens, hair dressers, choreographers, chorus boys, and we all don't want to give straight guys a "Queer Eye" makeover.

By the way, I don't think anyone but your WP bretheren will agree with your presentation of the history of fascism.
As fascist as he may be, I don't think he's actually WP.

However, Soheran is right. A revolution will best succeed when it has majority support and is done as quietly, tactfully and diplomatically as possible.

That's never worked before, and it won't start now. Quiet, tactful, diplomatic revolutions are revolutions that don't end up changing much.

You have to get rid of the old system. My very strong preference is to do it non-violently.

Revolutions are bad ideas. They almost never accomplish anything other than a spectacular bodycount.

Education, borderline behaviour & participation in government, is the way to accomplish one's goals. No-one is convinced by death threats & imprisonment. I'll not become any less bisexual just because the local Fascist Catholic wants to kill me. In fact, all it accomplishes, is to make me view him & his kin as threats, threats I'll need to neutralise.

Violence breeds violence.

I loathe violence. But violence in self-defense can sometimes be necessary, and it is violence of that character that defines a legitimate violent revolution.

First of all, how did we get from gay pride parades to a big debate about nazis, communism, marxism, etc. ?
Conversations on NS rarely stay on one fixed topic. :p

Second of all, to the indivual who claims to be turning away from homosexuality: if this is what you honestly believe you need to do to be happy, then I truely want to wish you the best of luck. While I don't necessarily believe that a person's sexuality is something that we can just pick and choose from, you have at least found a church that is supportive and still allows you to be a member of their congregation. Sadly, my own church that I was actively involved in asked me to leave after they discovered that I am gay because they thought I would be a "bad influence" on the younger generation. :(
The Church often supports its gay members if it is truly Christian. Luckily, not all local churches are religious bigots. Sorry to hear about your bad experiences though.

Finally, I find PDAs, from both gay and straight couples to be vomit-inducing.

...

I think that pride parades need to reflect the entire gay community, because we are doctors, and lawyers, and business people, and professors, and parents, and every other type of worker as our hetero counter parts. We're not all drag queens, hair dressers, choreographers, chorus boys, and we all don't want to give striaght guys a "Queer Eye" makeover.
I agree wholeheartedly. The work we put in is often overshadowed by negative stereotypes, many of which are actually justified by the actions of some homosexuals. It is a shame.

That's never worked before, and it won't start now. Quiet, tactful, diplomatic revolutions are revolutions that don't end up changing much.

You have to get rid of the old system. My very strong preference is to do it non-violently.
Exactly. Hence the words tactful and diplomatic. They are meant to connote a sort of "legal revolution."

Exactly. As well as organised and codified ex-propriation. Revolting against it will be perceived as a threat to the nation (hence, emotions of national unity will be evoked), and subsequently crushed, leading the State to seem like the defender and further expand its powers.
yeah that's why i'm not political in real life anymore... the ant shouting slogans at the charging elephant image finally overwhelmed my young adult need to shout slogans at things. now i'm just an ant who grumbles to himself hidden in his hill as the elephant stomps around above.

unfortunately at its base a government is just organized and codified violence, any attempt to fundimentally alter it or destroy it runs the risk of unleashing that violence.Where'd I see those lines before :p

Obviously I agree, but all revolt opens a power vacuum. That vacuum cannot be filled with reason & dialogue, only brute force. That's why nearly all revolutions fail so miserably.

It is, of course, far easier to bring down a house of cards by giving the table a good kick, than by replacing the cards with ones that can't sustain it. But when the table in question are human beings, kicking it isn't an option. It'd make you no different from the government.

Violence is only justifiable in imminent self defence. Militants are just government wannabe's with a less widely recognised right to inflict harm on humans.

First of all, how did we get from gay pride parades to a big debate about nazis, communism, marxism, etc. ?

That's NS General for you. :)

Finally, I find PDAs, from both gay and straight couples to be vomit-inducing. The old jr. high line of "Get a room!" comes to mind.

I don't. I really don't care, and frankly don't understand why it bothers people.

At the pride parades I've seen, it always seems to just be a parade of drag queens and guys in short shorts.

Keep the drag queens. They have the right to express themselves as much as the rest of us do.

yeah that's why i'm not political in real life anymore... the ant shouting slogans at the charging elephant image finally overwhelmed my young adult need to shout slogans at things. now i'm just an ant who grumbles to himself hidden in his hill as the elephant stomps around above.
I still think that it's worth attempting a change through the system, aimed at overriding it ultimately. Secession may be the key.

Violence is only justifiable in imminent self defence. Militants are just government wannabe's with a less widely recognised right to inflict harm on humans.

What if the system is actively oppressing you in a way that is never "imminent" but always there? Say, through extreme poverty and malnutrition that is costing lives?

I don't like how many gays express themselves in public either, like they want everyone to know who they are, and what they're about. I wish they'd stop. And, this coming from a gay person himself. :mad:

I don't see what the problem is either. Granted, some gays are obnoxious, but they're few & far between. I have nothing to do with those people & absolutely no problem avoiding them. To say that they're forcing their lifestyle on me would be a lie. They do no such thing, and even if they wanted to, they're in no position to accomplish it.

I don't see why parades & such are a problem. For most people, it's just an occation to make friends, get drunk & perhaps inspire people to talk about the oppression & intolerance in society. The guys in skirts & shorts aren't any different than scantily clad samba dancers, disney figures or religious idols in other parades. They're just symbols.

I don't know why it's a problem for some to see couples kiss, hold hands or any such thing in public. Straight people do it all the time, so why can't others?

I don't know why it's a problem for some to see couples kiss, hold hands or any such thing in public. Straight people do it all the time, so why can't others?
This I wonder myself.

What if the system is actively oppressing you in a way that is never "imminent" but always there? Say, through extreme poverty and malnutrition that is costing lives?I assume you infiltrate, educate & show dissent until you have 51% of the peoples behind you, right?

I'd keep doing it until the government becomes an illegitimate institution in the eyes of the vast majority of peoples. That way, the government will be rendered obsolete by itself & be seen as the oppressive force that it is. Violently overthrowing a government just invites people like the fascist self-hater & the attention of the armed forces of other unfree peoples. Patience is a virtue under the current circumstances. Meanwhile, I'll do my best to make people aware that they're living off the deaths of millions.

My rant started this?Unexpected.

As stated in the beginning,I am just really indifferent to it all.As long as one gets the job done professionally and does their own thing without harming others,I don't see any problem.I am just tired of getting woken up by my neighbour,whom I mentioned in the opening post of this thread,which motivated me to post this as an outlet.

Somehow,my rant started a debate on the various pros and cons of liberterianism and anarchism.I'll continue watching.

I assume you infiltrate, educate & show dissent until you have 51% of the peoples behind you, right?

I'd keep doing it until the government becomes an illegitimate institution in the eyes of the vast majority of peoples. That way, the government will be rendered obsolete by itself & be seen as the oppressive force that it is. Violently overthrowing a government just invites people like the fascist self-hater & the attention of the armed forces of other unfree peoples. Patience is a virtue under the current circumstances. Meanwhile, I'll do my best to make people aware that they're living off the deaths of millions.
Indeed, if people strip a government of its legitimacy slowly-slowly it wanes. Gradual, carefully planned secession throughout the nation would strip it of its financial basis, and in time it would implode.

My rant started this?Unexpected.

As stated in the beginning,I am just really indifferent to it all.As long as one gets the job done professionally and does their own thing without harming others,I don't see any problem.I am just tired of getting woken up by my neighbour,whom I mentioned in the opening post of this thread,which motivated me to post this as an outlet.

Somehow,my rant started a debate on the various pros and cons of liberterianism and anarchism.I'll continue watching.Hehe, this forum is a riot :p

Why don't you ask your neighbour to do something? I used to live above a porn club & was put in a similar situation one summer. There'd never been a problem before, but in the warm summer evenings, they felt they had to open the windows.
After a bit of a talk, they resolved the problem.

I assume you infiltrate, educate & show dissent until you have 51% of the peoples behind you, right?

Depends on the situation.

Firstly, you're always infliltrating, educating, and showing dissent as long as there's oppression, whether it's deadly or not. Stopping oppression is a good thing, period, but it would be wrong to, say, go around shooting homophobes just because homophobia is oppressive. You need a real threat for that, which manifests itself only in the tiny portion of the homophobic population that actively engages in hate violence against the gay community.

Secondly, you don't always need a majority. You need a majority if you're trying to seize power over all of society in one form or another, statist or non-statist. But the black community shouldn't have waited for white approval before defending itself against white oppression; when the class oppressing you is the majority class, your right to self-defense isn't somehow repealed. Your aims in such a case, however, must be restricted to self-determination and self-management, not control over any other group as might be necessary in a revolution of an oppressed majority.

I was referring to the specific case of working class revolution in my earlier statements. Since the working class is an oppressed majority, it's stupid and elitist to get a minority, supposedly "with the proletariat's best interests at heart," to seize power for itself.

I'd keep doing it until the government becomes an illegitimate institution in the eyes of the vast majority of peoples. That way, the government will be rendered obsolete by itself & be seen as the oppressive force that it is. Violently overthrowing a government just invites people like the fascist self-hater & the attention of the armed forces of other unfree peoples. Patience is a virtue under the current circumstances. Meanwhile, I'll do my best to make people aware that they're living off the deaths of millions.

I can see the potential for non-violent overthrow - that's happened before. I don't see how this gradual approach will face the ultimate issue, however, of the government having coercive forces behind it. Sure, you can ignore the law, but the law won't ignore you. Unless you have an active popular revolution, which may end up being non-violent, the state will just overwhelm you.

Hehe, this forum is a riot :p

Why don't you ask your neighbour to do something? I used to live above a porn club & was put in a similar situation one summer. There'd never been a problem before, but in the warm summer evenings, they felt they had to open the windows.
After a bit of a talk, they resolved the problem.

Will take that advice into consideration.Either that,or I will buy a karaoke machine.Lets see how Miss "Oh I'm a Lesbian,Let me Shout my Climax" Neighbour takes to being interrupted during her sessions by Heavy Metal music sung on karaoke.:D

Depends on the situation.

Firstly, you're always infliltrating, educating, and showing dissent as long as there's oppression, whether it's deadly or not. Stopping oppression is a good thing, period, but it would be wrong to, say, go around shooting homophobes just because homophobia is oppressive. You need a real threat for that, which manifests itself only in the tiny portion of the homophobic population that actively engages in hate violence against the gay community.

Secondly, you don't always need a majority. You need a majority if you're trying to seize power over all of society in one form or another, statist or non-statist. But the black community shouldn't have waited for white approval before defending itself against white oppression; when the class oppressing you is the majority class, your right to self-defense isn't somehow repealed. Your aims in such a case, however, must be restricted to self-determination and self-management, not control over any other group as might be necessary in a revolution of an oppressed majority.

I was referring to the specific case of working class revolution in my earlier statements. Since the working class is an oppressed majority, it's stupid and elitist to get a minority, supposedly "with the proletariat's best interests at heart," to seize power for itself.First & foremost, I have no interest in seizing power over anyone but myself. I'm pretty damn keen on limiting the powers of a whole lot of institutions & individuals, but not to grap it. If that was what I wanted, I'd be a career politician today, or possibly a communist.

Secondly, the working class & middle class in the country I currently live in, is the same thing. Right there is one hell of an obstacle to undermining the legitimacy of government. It's managed to keep virtually 100% of the population content & prosperous - at the expense of forigners, mostly. People aren't overly concerned about being rendered powerless, as long as they're cared for. To be blunt: people don't give a toss about freedom & forigners.

I can see the potential for non-violent overthrow - that's happened before. I don't see how this gradual approach will face the ultimate issue, however, of the government having coercive forces behind it. Sure, you can ignore the law, but the law won't ignore you. Unless you have an active popular revolution, which may end up being non-violent, the state will just overwhelm you.Tell me about it.. I've spend so much time getting arrested, being imprisoned & working my ass off to pay fines. No fun at all.

Still, things like that just makes me stubborn. It isn't possible to just fabricate a popular revolt when you feel like it. It's a process of education. People need to be put in a situation where they can't ignore the negative consequences of their rulers & can't act in accordance with their wishes. Telling someone how they're indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions, by their continued support of weapons exports, corporate subsidies & tax barriers, makes no impression. They have to see it, all of it.
The only way to do that, is to divert media attention to such things, and raise the issues in government.

I know it isn't gonna happen in my lifetime. But I can see we're slowly progressing towards my dream. We gain liberties faster than we're deprived of them. Our market model is unsustainable, and will eventually become a living hell, if people don't remidy the situation. And I have faith we will, hopefully in time.

How Im I lost?

I found personal salvation, by accepting my humble position in God's Divine Plan and obeying His Laws and the way He wanted us to be, not the way some selfish people think they should be.

Well, going by my rules, us homosexuals are the chosen ones - you really think that they would save heterosexuals? there is limited room in heaven you know, and its alot easier to just say, "that 3% will get into heaven' rather than trying to sift through all the crap that makes up humanity.

Oh, btw, you might wish to read up about how god despises arrogance, pride, judgemental behaviour etc. all the things you're displaying right now.

Yes, we all know of communism/marxism and it's illogical hatred of the natural order, in particular the family unit. Engles wasted many pages worth of paper writing his nonsense about the family being 'oppressive' etc.....

Who in their right mind would listen to a brainwashed, irrational communist/marxist?

Hetrosexuality is natural, homosexuality is not, there is NO debate on that issue.

If you don't like seeing families and children being raised in a loving home by their mother and father, if you don't like seeing humans act according to their natural state, go and live in your hellhole 'paradise' of that dump of a nation, Cuba.

You can spend the rest of your life living under the tyranny of that monster, Castro.

1) There isn't one 'pure' Communist state that allows homosexuality; in a communist 'hell hole', communism IS the religion, and like Christianity, they've adopted the 'beat up and kill of the gays' policy.

2) I'm a libertarian, and you would find that the majority of gays that I come accross share the same opinion; we believe in rights of the individual vs. the brain washing collectivisation which religion promotes; the sheep mentality of the blind leading the blind.

Heck, it's usually practiced by heterosexuals. Bigger market, after all.

Meh, I think the better barometre; I went out of a gay night club; I saw one couple into that scene, the rest were good old fashioned vanilla sex; I guess that shoots the 'queers at the source of kinkiness' theory.

I would like to ask any homosexual posters, if they ever tried to leave homosexuality?

Either through the work of the Chruch or other institutions?

Babe, I like, sorry, love, sorry, think being gay is awesome - so no, why would I want to give up something that I actually *LIKE* about myself?

You may want to live up to other peoples expectations, but unlike you, who is just a little over a year older than you, realise that this is MY life to lead according to my OWN values, not those imposed on me by the powers that be.

Or he could accept his innate sexuality and realise that it is not in truth contradictory to Christianity.

Which would require him to locate a backbone, something he doesn't have nor wishes to purchase in the near future; he would rather be a jelly fish, floating through life, being a bitch to everyone who comes within a 100metre radius of him.

Which would require him to locate a backbone, something he doesn't have nor wishes to purchase in the near future; he would rather be a jelly fish, floating through life, being a bitch to everyone who comes within a 100metre radius of him.The combination of your accurate posts & the lyrics thread, makes me want to share this little text. Goes to the melody of "Substitute".

You were born with a yellow streak down your back
And it's only innocents that you attack
You're a prostitute for the Nazi-man
You're being used in his Master Plan
And when he's taken all you got
You'll be up against the wall & shot.

Substitute, that's a fact
See right through your Union Jack
See right through the hate you cry
Substitute & that's no lie.

You think you look pretty good together
But your politics ain't all that clever
You're a prostitute for the Nazi whore
A mercenary in a Fascist war
And if they ever do succeed
You're the first one that they'll bleed, Oh yeah!

Megh, as long as no one starts fucking in front of me (without my permission) then they can be anything they want. I honestly couldn't care less.

Yes. As long as they don't start forcing it down my throat*.

As for making a big issue of part of their person, it tends to happen when people feel it is treated as a thing of shame. That is why marches etc are required.

In most social occasions keeping your attention to one person to the exclusion of others is rude. However, holding hands or a occasional kiss is harmless enough.








*Sorry.

First & foremost, I have no interest in seizing power over anyone but myself. I'm pretty damn keen on limiting the powers of a whole lot of institutions & individuals, but not to grap it. If that was what I wanted, I'd be a career politician today, or possibly a communist.

All I meant by "seizing power" was seizing power to do exactly that - "limiting the powers of a whole lot of institutions and individuals," namely capitalist ones, and probably the state as well. The point I wanted to make is while a pluralist revolution with strong popular backing against the system would have the right to, say, expropriate the means of production, a revolution of an oppressed minority would have no right to do so; only to expropriate some of the means of production, the ones directly involved in their oppression.

Secondly, the working class & middle class in the country I currently live in, is the same thing. Right there is one hell of an obstacle to undermining the legitimacy of government. It's managed to keep virtually 100% of the population content & prosperous - at the expense of forigners, mostly. People aren't overly concerned about being rendered powerless, as long as they're cared for. To be blunt: people don't give a toss about freedom & forigners.

I don't think that's true at all. People care immensely about freedom. Modern society has managed to provide pretty well in First World nations for a large portion of the population, but I don't think that translates into contentment, not theoretically or in reality. The feelings of alienation, of boredom, of powerlessness, are everywhere.

I agree with everything else you said in your post.

All I meant by "seizing power" was seizing power to do exactly that - "limiting the powers of a whole lot of institutions and individuals," namely capitalist ones, and probably the state as well. The point I wanted to make is while a pluralist revolution with strong popular backing against the system would have the right to, say, expropriate the means of production, a revolution of an oppressed minority would have no right to do so; only to expropriate some of the means of production, the ones directly involved in their oppression.
Ah, sorry. I tend to get paranoid around revolutionaries, because they - in my experience - usually wish to seize control of everything. Not only is my goal the exact opposite, I also fail to see what such a thing would accomplish. It's like swapping one broken bit for another equally broken bit. I guess that's why a lot of anarchists & commies don't get along too well.

I still remember the shock-horror of seeing some UK Communists plastering posters everywhere, praising Mao's Cultural Revolution.I don't think that's true at all. People care immensely about freedom. Modern society has managed to provide pretty well in First World nations for a large portion of the population, but I don't think that translates into contentment, not theoretically or in reality. The feelings of alienation, of boredom, of powerlessness, are everywhere.I disagree, unfortunately. I don't know how old you are, but I've reached the point in life where most of my friends have families to take care of. That leaves little room for deep involvement in "subversive" behaviour. In fact, it severely limits people's ability to keep up with the daily happenings in their local society.

My personal theory is that I'll see a few of my friends devolve into apathetic left-wingers, who'll curse the youth for causing a fuss instead of minding their own business. I hope it'll take another 10 years or so, though.

But I agree that this is because of social alienation. People are too far removed from the decision making process. We have no way of directly interfering with politics, and when the most impact the average citizen can have on society, is to dump trash on a street corner, people have no incentive to bother. After all, why make time for politics, when there's kids, jobs, the significant other & footy & beers on the weekends? It's not like most people don't have better things to do, when there's no way to accomplish anything.

Seen or heard any of the old ex-hippie bastards, bitching about violent misfit youth lately? Or perhaps heard them praise anti-terror initivs, or surveilance of public spaces? I bet the above plays a huge part in it. TV as well.

Don't get me wrong though, as disillusioned as I am, I still give it my all & always will. Apathy & prison only strenghtens my resolve.I agree with everything else you said in your post.Likewise. Seeing your political compass scores, I'm not at all surprised :p

2) I'm a libertarian, and you would find that the majority of gays that I come accross share the same opinion; we believe in rights of the individual vs. the brain washing collectivisation which religion promotes; the sheep mentality of the blind leading the blind.
What kind anyway? Liberal-libertarian or libertarian-left? I am the former.

BTW, Kravania check your telegrams.

Apathy & prison only strenghtens my resolve.

What is wrong about having prisons?

Why do anarchists always wish to see rapists, child molesters, killers, theives etc.... free to walk the streets.

Your type always go on about the 'rights' of criminals, gangsters and terrorists, what about the rights of the victims to be safe?

You anarchists also never come up with workable solutions to the criminal justice system either.

Seen or heard any of the old ex-hippie bastards, bitching about violent misfit youth lately? Or perhaps heard them praise anti-terror initivs, or surveilance of public spaces? I bet the above plays a huge part in it. TV as well.

Yes, it's so wrong to 'bitch' about criminal teenagers who terrorise innocent people on the streets. I would love to see you hold these stupid beliefs that criminals deserve either rights or respect, if you get mugged or beaten up on the streets.

I have seen with my own eyes, who these sub-human welfare parasites from those awful council estates cause misery in our cities.

I was mugged 4 times last year, I had a mobile phone worth £300 stolen, money, worth about £800 or so in total stolen last year by these scum who only seek to steal and live of state handouts for they cannot be asked to work, becuase of Britian's retarded socialist system seek to preserve these sub-human creatures, for what reason, I only wish I knew.

What is wrong about having prisons?

Why do anarchists always wish to see rapists, child molesters, killers, theives etc.... free to walk the streets.

Your type always go on about the 'rights' of criminals, gangsters and terrorists, what about the rights of the victims to be safe?

You anarchists also never come up with workable solutions to the criminal justice system either.
Actually, we have. 140 years ago. I have sent you a Telegram, check it. We don't let anyone walk free as you say.



Yes, it's so wrong to 'bitch' about criminal teenagers who terrorise innocent people on the streets. I would love to see you hold these stupid beliefs that criminals deserve either rights or respect, if you get mugged or beaten up on the streets.

I have seen with my own eyes, who these sub-human welfare parasites from those awful council estates cause misery in our cities.

I was mugged 4 times last year, I had a mobile hpone worth £300 stolen, money, worth about £800 or so in total stolen last year by these scum who only seek to steal and live of state handouts for they cannot be asked to work, becuase of Britian's retarded socialist system seek to preserve these sub-human creatures, for what reason, I only wish I knew.
You do realise that liberal-libertarians are against welfare, don't you?

Ah, sorry. I tend to get paranoid around revolutionaries, because they - in my experience - usually wish to seize control of everything. Not only is my goal the exact opposite, I also fail to see what such a thing would accomplish. It's like swapping one broken bit for another equally broken bit. I guess that's why a lot of anarchists & commies don't get along too well.

I don't get any thrill out of seeing myself in power. I wouldn't be able to handle it, and frankly I don't think anybody else could either. And it's just wrong, too. People should be making decisions for themselves, collectively when the consequences are collective, individually when the consequences are individual. I'm too much of an egalitarian at heart to support any other model.

I disagree, unfortunately. I don't know how old you are, but I've reached the point in life where most of my friends have families to take care of. That leaves little room for deep involvement in "subversive" behaviour. In fact, it severely limits people's ability to keep up with the daily happenings in their local society.

I'm not saying that people are all desperate to fight in the revolution. That usually doesn't happen until there's the material necessity to do so, and that will wait until environmental degradation and the decay in the social democratic model forces it. But I think the consequences of the deprivation of freedom are very apparent in our society, and at least on the unconscious level, most people don't like it.

I don't get any thrill out of seeing myself in power. I wouldn't be able to handle it, and frankly I don't think anybody else could either. And it's just wrong, too. People should be making decisions for themselves, collectively when the consequences are collective, individually when the consequences are individual. I'm too much of an egalitarian at heart to support any other model.
We differ then only in this regard. I lean much closer to classical liberal-libertarianism, but I share your distaste for absolute power.

I'm not saying that people are all desperate to fight in the revolution. That usually doesn't happen until there's the material necessity to do so, and that will wait until environmental degradation and the decay in the social democratic model forces it. But I think the consequences of the deprivation of freedom are very apparent in our society, and at least on the unconscious level, most people don't like it.
Perhaps social democracy will be its own death.

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

You're right. TO THE BIBLECOPTER! We must SPRING INTO ACTION and destroy the evil homosexual conspiracy! Damn them, wanting not to be harassed by the smugly superior voices of people who aren't affected by their actions in any way but just feel so awful that people who don't agree with them are doing anything they want!

These things that do not affect us in any way must not be allowed to continue! Because remember, we are the best, most moral people in the world, and what we say goes! So..we must mobilize the troops, suit up,a nd move out. Holy League of Fellowship, up up, AND AWAAAAYYYY!

The evil Gayonis is trying to corrupt us in an evil homosexual conspiracy by..living his own life. HOW DARE HE not listen to us? Doesn't he know we're morally superior to him, and what we say goes? Not agreeing with us about everything is the same as heresy. And heretics are evil by definition!

Hallowed are the Ori! Oops..I mean, praise be to God. Wait, no...it's not God we're talking about. Oh yeah, now I got it. Praise be to our narrow interpretation of God which isn't even supported by biblical texts!

--

Heh. Yes, gay people should be proud of who they are and we have no right to tell them how to live their own lives. But I don't want to hear about their sexual encounters any more than I go around telling everybody whenever I have sex with a woman. Private matters should stay private, and be treated as our own private business.

We differ then only in this regard. I lean much closer to classical liberal-libertarianism, but I share your distaste for absolute power.

Right-libertarianism is too elitist for me. I see private power over public questions to be tyranny, whatever the excuses, and I cannot support any social system that involves its maintenance.

Perhaps social democracy will be its own death.

It's already being its own death. You can't restrain capital anymore, not in these days of neoliberal capitalist globalization. You have to seize it, to expropriate it, and instead of proposing such solutions the social democrats have decided to move right instead.

What is wrong about having prisons?

Why do anarchists always wish to see rapists, child molesters, killers, theives etc.... free to walk the streets.

Your type always go on about the 'rights' of criminals, gangsters and terrorists, what about the rights of the victims to be safe?

You anarchists also never come up with workable solutions to the criminal justice system either.It's prolly a good idea to check the TG EM sent you. Alternatively, I'm pretty sure the FAQ I offered you earlier have some answers for you. Been a while since I read it though, so let me know if you need more material.

In any case, you're as wrong as can be.


Yes, it's so wrong to 'bitch' about criminal teenagers who terrorise innocent people on the streets. I would love to see you hold these stupid beliefs that criminals deserve either rights or respect, if you get mugged or beaten up on the streets.

I have seen with my own eyes, who these sub-human welfare parasites from those awful council estates cause misery in our cities.

I was mugged 4 times last year, I had a mobile phone worth £300 stolen, money, worth about £800 or so in total stolen last year by these scum who only seek to steal and live of state handouts for they cannot be asked to work, becuase of Britian's retarded socialist system seek to preserve these sub-human creatures, for what reason, I only wish I knew.Anarchists do not promote welfare states, or states for that matter. We propose local areas work out how they want to deal with those things themselves, because we don't believe in the "one-size fit's all" solutions the current regimes push on people. Your various negative experiences might well be an indication that we're right... Then again, it might have something to do with you being who you are. I know I'd kick your fascist bum out of town, if you lived here.
We differ then only in this regard. I lean much closer to classical liberal-libertarianism, but I share your distaste for absolute power.And I'm likely somewhere in-between the two of you.Perhaps social democracy will be its own death.As previously stated, that's what I believe. Our Social (and not so social) Democrazies aren't sustainable & keep accelerating towards their demise. But in the likely case that my dreams won't come true in my lifetime, my contingency plan is to buy an island & go do my own thing with friends & family. It'll be another 30 years before I can realise that, though.

Right-libertarianism is too elitist for me. I see private power over public questions to be tyranny, whatever the excuses, and I cannot support any social system that involves its maintenance.
I am a bit of an elitist, although I will agree that the system needs some thinking through before it can be implemented. I would ideally see different regions adopting different systems- some anarchist-left, some anarcho-capitalism. That way both could be put to the test and the best would shine through. If the two systems could be reconciled, ie a mix of both ideologies, perhaps the result would be all the better.


It's already being its own death. You can't restrain capital anymore, not in these days of neoliberal capitalist globalization. You have to seize it, to expropriate it, and instead of proposing such solutions the social democrats have decided to move right instead.
Either way, it's just a matter of when. I found it amusing that the book the End of History sees social democracy as the last regime in mankind's history, as if it is eternal or something.

And I'm likely somewhere in-between the two of you.
Hmm, how so exactly?

As previously stated, that's what I believe. Our Social (and not so social) Democrazies aren't sustainable & keep accelerating towards their demise. But in the likely case that my dreams won't come true in my lifetime, my contingency plan is to buy an island & go do my own thing with friends & family. It'll be another 30 years before I can realise that, though.
They are going to implode on their own huge debts and over-burdened welfare systems.

Hmm, how so exactly?I'm not opposed to a money & service based economic model, nor am I opposed (obviously) to fairly expansive property rights. Anything else would presumably both cause stagnation & make life a nightmare.They are going to implode on their own huge debts and over-burdened welfare systems.Pollution, exhaustion of natural resources & imminent violations of rights will be at least as important, I think. But semantics :p

I'm not opposed to a money & service based economic model, nor am I opposed (obviously) to fairly expansive property rights. Anything else would presumably both cause stagnation & make life a nightmare.
That would be the liberal-libertarian side of you speaking. :p Which is the anarco-socialist side then?

Pollution, exhaustion of natural resources & imminent violations of rights will be at least as important, I think. But semantics :p
Among other things, yes. :) The welfare system is just the most glaringly obvious.

That would be the liberal-libertarian side of you speaking. :p Which is the anarco-socialist side then?The one where there's a limit to property rights, mostly. I completely agree that crucial goods & services can't legitimately be owned by any one person or group. Like I said, I'm somewhere in-between you guys ;)


Among other things, yes. :) The welfare system is just the most glaringly obvious.It's also the easiest to deal with. Not only is a war handy for boosting the economy, it also empties prisons, cuts back on needed welfare resources & affords the state with the opportunity to roll back welfare for most groups, without major protests. And war isn't the only tool for anti-social regulations.

The one where there's a limit to property rights, mostly. I completely agree that crucial goods & services can't legitimately be owned by any one person or group. Like I said, I'm somewhere in-between you guys ;)
So do I. Ideally, no one person or group would own it in anarcho-capitalism due to the idea of perfect competition. I am not so fanciful though. This is one bit we still have to work out.


It's also the easiest to deal with. Not only is a war handy for boosting the economy, it also empties prisons, cuts back on needed welfare resources & affords the state with the opportunity to roll back welfare for most groups, without major protests. And war isn't the only tool for anti-social regulations.
And further propels spending. Either way, the social democracies are ended. :)

Then again, it might have something to do with you being who you are. I know I'd kick your fascist bum out of town, if you lived here.

I do not publicly display my Fascist beliefs.

I don't walk around the streets of London in Fascist uniform either.

Im not a skinhead, I do have hair on my scalp. BTW I detest skinheads, they give the Fascist cause bad publicity.

I dress and act in a normal and polite manner.

If you were ever to meet me in person, you would have no idea of my beliefs or views.

I guess the reason my muggers went for me is that fact that I wear designer clothing and have expensive taste. But then again, what does that say about these violent youths, who attack people who are not afraid of showing others their success?

So do I. Ideally, no one person or group would own it in anarcho-capitalism due to the idea of perfect competition. I am not so fanciful though. This is one bit we still have to work out.Well, limited property rights & a money-based participatory economic model, might just do the trick.
But we'd have to try it in practice.And further propels spending. Either way, the social democracies are ended. :)Exactly :cool:

I guess the reason my muggers went for me is that fact that I wear designer clothing and have expensive taste. But then again, what does that say about these violent youths, who attack people who are not afraid of showing others their success?
It says very little of them indeed.

Well, limited property rights & a money-based participatory economic model, might just do the trick. But we'd have to try it in practice.
As might private charity. Time will tell.

I am a bit of an elitist, although I will agree that the system needs some thinking through before it can be implemented. I would ideally see different regions adopting different systems- some anarchist-left, some anarcho-capitalism. That way both could be put to the test and the best would shine through. If the two systems could be reconciled, ie a mix of both ideologies, perhaps the result would be all the better.

Proudhonian mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Political_Philosophy) may be something along those lines.

Proudhonian mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Political_Philosophy) may be something along those lines.
I'll give it a look :)

The reason why homosexual deviants make such an effort to not only inform the wider public of their sin, they make a specific point of promoting the homosexual 'lifestyle' to the extent that homosexuals will insist that EVERY member of society not only tolerates their perversion, but to shout down and supress the voices of truth, be they upstanding members of society who detest the moral decay of todays world or the Church, who now have been silenced by an elaborate network of homosexual 'rights' activists.

Homosexuals seek to recruit the innocent and the simple minded to either become homosexuals themselves or they try and turn normal people into foot soldiers/cannon fodder for their campaign to spread homosexuality and thus morcal decay throughout the whole of society.

If this is the kind of bullshit you really believe then i feel really bad for and your small closed mind. First... homosexuals ARE NOT sinners. Second... We DONT recruit. And i dont know what "innocent" people your refering to in that one comment of your but i have news for you no one is innocent, not even a staight bible loveing, God preching, man or women can say they are innocent. So why dont you pull your head out of the clouds and take a look around. Because i doubt the fact that you've been living in the real world. Society is changeing, people are becoming alot more accepting of others, GET USED TO IT!!!And :upyours:

snip

Im not a skinhead, I do have hair on my scalp. BTW I detest skinheads, they give the Fascist cause bad publicity.

snip
And you cant understand that not all homosexuals are bondage in public types? and some of us dislike the immage they are giving us as well?

I do not publicly display my Fascist beliefs.Why not?I don't walk around the streets of London in Fascist uniform either.I wasn't aware you had those. What do they look like?Im not a skinhead, I do have hair on my scalp. BTW I detest skinheads, they give the Fascist cause bad publicity.Skinheads aren't Fascists. A few of your Fascist mates just started imitating the appearance of a group of people, who've always stood for class struggle, racial tolerance & worker solidarity. The exact opposite of Bonehead scum. The lyrics I treated you to earlier are by a Skinhead band called The Oppressed.

Incidentially, the boneheads you so dislike don't give you bad publicity. They're just willing to act in accordance with their sick ideology, unlike you. So whatever publicity you get, is what you deserve.I dress and act in a normal and polite manner.You certainly don't act in a polite manner. Urging the execution of various people, right in the face of a bunch of them, hardly qualifies as polite behaviour.If you were ever to meet me in person, you would have no idea of my beliefs or views. I hope you're right, for both our sakes.I guess the reason my muggers went for me is that fact that I wear designer clothing and have expensive taste. But then again, what does that say about these violent youths, who attack people who are not afraid of showing others their success?Maybe it says something about them not having the opportunities you have?
Or maybe they're just beyond giving a shit about people who see them as rabid animals. Who knows, really?

I'm not opposed to a money & service based economic model, nor am I opposed (obviously) to fairly expansive property rights. Anything else would presumably both cause stagnation & make life a nightmare.

I think a "money & service based economic model" is fine, as long as the empowered worker's councils and federations choose it for themselves as a way to efficiently distribute resources and hold productive institutions accountable, and as long as they are aware and actively counteract the distortions inequities in consumer wealth make within "market democracy."

What's most important to me is the property question. As long as we have collective systems of production and distribution, we need collective ownership and management of such systems. As long as the capability for labor is a privilege - as long as children, the elderly, and the disabled exist, for instance - labor cannot be an absolute foundation for the right to property, either.

Maybe it says something about them not having the opportunities you have?
Or maybe they're just beyond giving a shit about people who see them as rabid animals. Who knows, really?
Thank God we still have the right to self-defence.

I think a "money & service based economic model" is fine, as long as the empowered worker's councils and federations choose it for themselves as a way to efficiently distribute resources and hold productive institutions accountable, and as long as they are aware and actively counteract the distortions inequities in consumer wealth make within "market democracy."
How would these even exist outside a democracy, unless they did so on private initiative? Then again, outside democracy law and order would be handled by private firms, and thus worker gatherings may not be crushed by the now gone State. So they may actually hold sway over free-marketeers.

I think a "money & service based economic model" is fine, as long as the empowered worker's councils and federations choose it for themselves as a way to efficiently distribute resources and hold productive institutions accountable, and as long as they are aware and actively counteract the distortions inequities in consumer wealth make within "market democracy."Agreed. I just don't believe the proposed planned economy or barter'esque systems would be efficient, or fun. As much as I hate to admit it, work ethic goes out the window when there's no personal gain involved. It isn't feasible that everyone will be able to spend their entire career doing something they really, really love doing. I myself am a great example of that. I love doing what I do, but I wouldn't get a whole lot done if I didn't reap some rewards.What's most important to me is the property question. As long as we have collective systems of production and distribution, we need collective ownership and management of such systems. As long as the capability for labor is a privilege - as long as children, the elderly, and the disabled exist, for instance - labor cannot be an absolute foundation for the right to property, either.Again, I completely agree. However, for a system to be efficient, there needs to be room for free enterprise. Otherwise innovation grinds to a halt, social evolution grinds to a half, and a lot of people will spend their days feeling pretty damn miserable, because they have to put up with other people controlling their businesses.

*snip*
Agreed. So long as workers in a company are treated fairly and paid well, I have no qualms with free enterprise.

How would these even exist outside a democracy, unless they did so on private initiative? Then again, outside democracy law and order would be handled by private firms, and thus worker gatherings may not be crushed by the now gone State. So they may actually hold sway over free-marketeers.Enforcement of rules might be handled by a specialised group, but the "authority" would be the entire community in unison. Democracy isn't an option, as it either leads to a dictatorship by the elite, or a tyrany by the majority. Anarchism is basically all about consensus-rule.

Enforcement of rules might be handled by a specialised group, but the "authority" would be the entire community in unison. Democracy isn't an option, as it either leads to a dictatorship by the elite, or a tyrany by the majority. Anarchism is basically all about consensus-rule.
Exactly what I thought. Worker's councils would band together independently and ensure fair terms of employment. Perhaps even negotiate things over with firms that promote security and order (insurance agencies in an expanded role).

I sometimes find overt and stereotypical homosexual behaviour annoying, but I don't really blame them. When you're in a minority sexuality, it's the only real way you have of letting people, and potential partners, know that you are available. What else are you going to do? Wear an "I am gay" t-shirt? Wear rainbow armbands?

Exactly what I thought. Worker's councils would band together independently and ensure fair terms of employment. Perhaps even negotiate things over with firms that promote security and order (insurance agencies in an expanded role).Yups. I really, really hope I get to see it in practice one day.

But hey, I/we will make our own little utopia eventually. Beats the hell out of a normal retirement plan :cool:

Yups. I really, really hope I get to see it in practice one day.

But hey, I/we will make our own little utopia eventually. Beats the hell out of a normal retirement plan :cool:
If anarcho-capitalism could take that form, namely a free-market influenced by private pressures to remain fair, competitive and green-friendly, it would be utopia. :) I hope to see this materialise some day.

How would these even exist outside a democracy, unless they did so on private initiative? Then again, outside democracy law and order would be handled by private firms, and thus worker gatherings may not be crushed by the now gone State. So they may actually hold sway over free-marketeers.

I meant the democracy of the market, that is, the manner in which consumers can control what is produced.

Agreed. I just don't believe the proposed planned economy or barter'esque systems would be efficient, or fun. As much as I hate to admit it, work ethic goes out the window when there's no personal gain involved. It isn't feasible that everyone will be able to spend their entire career doing something they really, really love doing. I myself am a great example of that. I love doing what I do, but I wouldn't get a whole lot done if I didn't reap some rewards.

Most planned economies do actually involve some sort of compensation for labor effort. It's just gift economies that lack that. Decentralized democratic economic planning is my preference, ultimately, because pure "market socialism" prevents large-scale capital investment and "central planning" will always be inefficient and stagnant.

However, for a system to be efficient, there needs to be room for free enterprise. Otherwise innovation grinds to a halt, social evolution grinds to a half, and a lot of people will spend their days feeling pretty damn miserable, because they have to put up with other people controlling their businesses.

You deal with the alienation problem by trying to maximize self-management, and replace individual entrepreneurship by the small minority with the necessary capital with democratically-controlled collective entrepreneurship for the benefit of all.

You deal with the alienation problem by trying to maximize self-management, and replace individual entrepreneurship by the small minority with the necessary capital with democratically-controlled collective entrepreneurship for the benefit of all.
It would be fine if these collectively owned businesses could compete with individually owned corporations. If they proved profitable in the free market, more might actually switch to them. Even better if different areas used different systems. Remember, in anarcho-capitalism there is no state to quell worker dissidence, and private providers of security are not likely to risk their assets by quelling insurrections caused by injustices on part of the individual capitalist. Worker organisations may thus be able to ensure that they are not treated unfairly.

If anarcho-capitalism could take that form, namely a free-market influenced by private pressures to remain fair, competitive and green-friendly, it would be utopia. :) I hope to see this materialise some day.

But you still have tyranny. You still have the control of an elite minority - the capitalist class - over a basic aspect of society - the means of production, and thus the economy itself. You've gotten rid of the state, but you retain a powerful system of hierarchy.

Trade unionism in the context of a capitalist economy only works well with state support. I don't see why worker's councils would be any different - unless they owned and managed the means of production, in which case you would have some variety of libertarian/anarcho-socialism instead of anarcho-capitalism.

But you still have tyranny. You still have the control of an elite minority - the capitalist class - over a basic aspect of society - the means of production, and thus the economy itself. You've gotten rid of the state, but you retain a powerful system of hierarchy.

Trade unionism in the context of a capitalist economy only works well with state support. I don't see why worker's councils would be any different - unless they owned and managed the means of production, in which case you would have some variety of libertarian/anarcho-socialism instead of anarcho-capitalism.
Because workers are essential to the productive process. If they dropped their consent it would be rendered impossible. Therefore, they could pressure the individual capitalist into caving in to their terms. I am not so convinced that worker ownership of the means of production would be efficient.

Why On Earth Would You Be Proud About Committing A Mortal Sin????

Maybe it says something about them not having the opportunities you have?
Or maybe they're just beyond giving a shit about people who see them as rabid animals. Who knows, really?

You call me hate filled.

I will admit to hating to communists, anarchists, libertarians etc...

But I do that on the basis for what I know what anarchists and communists would do when they take power over society.

Your hate filled, just look at what you said.

Basically your supportive of the fact that these violent youths can at will attack people on the basis that their victims may be better off than they are.

The CEO of the firm I work for is richer than I am, does that give me the green light to steal from him and attack him?

I saw some anarchist posters by the terrorist group in the UK that calls itself 'Class War'.

The poster had a picture of gravestones, with the slogan "New homes for the Rich".

Anarchists are such caring people, are they not:rolleyes:

*snip*
And you think that true libertarian anarchists advocate such nonsensical violence and idiocy?

Anarchists are such caring people, are they not:rolleyes:

As opposed to you who wishes to "punish" me for liking men. Aren't you the "caring" person. :rolleyes:

Anarchist are hedonistic fools, and must be obliterated

It would be fine if these collectively owned businesses could compete with individually owned corporations. If they proved profitable in the free market, more might actually switch to them.

That won't work. Collectives in the Third World today, for instance, can't profitably export goods to the First World, because they can't match the low prices of multinationals without also oppressing their workers. However, that shouldn't be a problem if the worker base is also the consumer base, that is, if economic equality is approximately a reality, because low wages would mean low prices for the goods the recipients of low wages buy.

It's the structure of private enterprise that I don't like, and a mixed economy doesn't solve that.

Remember, in anarcho-capitalism there is no state to quell worker dissidence, and private providers of security are not likely to risk their assets by quelling insurrections caused by injustices on part of the individual capitalist. Worker organisations may thus be able to ensure that they are not treated unfairly.

"Private providers of security" will, naturally, seek to defend their biggest customers - those with the most money. They will serve as the guardians of the capitalist class, repressing worker dissent and slaughtering trade unionists. Without any coercive institutions on the side of the workers, the result will merely be the further enforcement of tyranny.

Because workers are essential to the productive process. If they dropped their consent it would be rendered impossible. Therefore, they could pressure the individual capitalist into caving in to their terms. I am not so convinced that worker ownership of the means of production would be efficient.Why not?

It seems to me the opposite would be more likely. When someone owns his own business, he is directly responsible for his own well-being & thus has a keen interest in securing the business.

On the other hand, when someone employs another, he is only responsible for the business, not the employee. That means the employee will either be in a position to make unreasonable & damaging demands, and won't have a reason not to, or the employer will be in a position to make unreasonable & damaging demands of the worker, resulting in slave-labour (however unabusive).

In a non-static market situation, a perfect status-quo between worker & employer can't be maintained & has an inate drive twards one extreme or the other.

Dictatorship is the only PROVEN for of peaceful rule, democracy only leads to civil war

That won't work. Collectives in the Third World today, for instance, can't profitably export goods to the First World, because they can't match the low prices of multinationals without also oppressing their workers. However, that shouldn't be a problem if the worker base is also the consumer base, that is, if economic equality is approximately a reality, because low wages would mean low prices for the goods the recipients of low wages buy.

It's the structure of private enterprise that I don't like, and a mixed economy doesn't solve that.
Essentially, the worker base would be the consumer base, yes.


"Private providers of security" will, naturally, seek to defend their biggest customers - those with the most money. They will serve as the guardians of the capitalist class, repressing worker dissent and slaughtering trade unionists. Without any coercive institutions on the side of the workers, the result will merely be the further enforcement of tyranny.
Hence the formation of such agencies to serve the needs of collectively owned companies, which could fuel them with their wealth. They could counter-act the influence of agencies made to protect individual capitalists.

Dictatorship is the only PROVEN for of peaceful rule, democracy only leads to civil war
Oh dictatorship usualy leads to a violent overthrow ... I fail to see how that is any more "peacefull"

A skilled dictator is benevolent, and doesn't have to face uprisings, but has the power to rule, should he need it.

*snip*
Perhaps so. Ideally if it could be done efficiently, workers would own shares in the company proportionate to their contribution to it. This could help maintain a private market and at the same time enrich them, without penalising worker-entrepreneurs whose ability and devotion is greater.

As opposed to you who wishes to "punish" me for liking men. Aren't you the "caring" person. :rolleyes:
Paradoxically enough, he himself likes men too.

Because workers are essential to the productive process. If they dropped their consent it would be rendered impossible. Therefore, they could pressure the individual capitalist into caving in to their terms.

But in order for that to be really effective, the worker councils would need a labor monopoly, which can be achieved only through closed shops - which, to be enforced, require a state. Anyway, such a structure would certainly involve market stagnation, because the workers wouldn't be responsible for the success or failure of the businesses.

But in order for that to be really effective, the worker councils would need a labor monopoly, which can be achieved only through closed shops - which, to be enforced, require a state. Anyway, such a structure would certainly involve market stagnation, because the workers wouldn't be responsible for the success or failure of the businesses.
Which is why I lean more towards worker ownership of private companies, provided this is efficient. This could be done by allowing them to profit from shares they have in the company, and via contractual agreements with the entrepreneur setting up the business. After all, for the business to work the said entrepreneur needs their labour. Thus, were he/she not to agree the business would never take off to begin with. This would secure worker wealth, allow for more skilled individuals to reap greater rewards and eliminate the need for insurance agencies to quell worker insurrections, since they would be protecting the workers themselves.

Ideally if it could be done efficiently, workers would own shares in the company proportionate to their contribution to it. This could help maintain a private market and at the same time enrich them, without penalising worker-entrepreneurs whose ability and devotion is greater.

Then you'd be penalizing new workers, even if they have had no opportunity to work before, or have worked but elsewhere.

An arrangement of monetary compensation along those lines would naturally occur in a democratically-run company, anyway, because it would maximize profits.

Then you'd be penalizing new workers, even if they have had no opportunity to work before, or have worked but elsewhere.
I believe that more experienced and skilled workers should be rewarded for their efforts, so I am not too concerned about this. Allowing retired workers greater shares for years of contribution would solve the need for pensions and the like. They would have built up a wealth basis to sustain themselves.

An arrangement of monetary compensation along those lines would naturally occur in a democratically-run company, anyway, because it would maximize profits.
Thus eliminating the weaknesses inherent in a free market. It would be a form of capitalist meritocratic syndicalism.

A skilled dictator is benevolent, and doesn't have to face uprisings, but has the power to rule, should he need it.
But over the long run (in the time scales we deal with for countries)

dictatorships are in them selfs un-stable

It does not matter how skilled dictator 1 is ... at the end of his life there will almost inevitably be a battle for the next dictator ... even if that does not lead to civil war there is no guarantee dictator2 will be as skilled.


I fail to see how you "proved" anything

Which is why I lean more towards worker ownership of private companies, provided this is efficient. This could be done by allowing them to profit from shares they have in the company, and via contractual agreements with the entrepreneur setting up the business. After all, for the business to work the said entrepreneur needs their labour. Thus, were he/she not to agree the business would never take off to begin with. This would secure worker wealth, allow for more skilled individuals to reap greater rewards and eliminate the need for insurance agencies to quell worker insurrections, since they would be protecting the workers themselves.

The problem is in the idea of contracts. A contract between an entrepreneur and a laborer isn't a fair contract. The competition between workers trying to sell their labor-power is a lot greater than the competition between capitalists trying to buy labor-power, and that is why capitalists can get away with disgusting exploitation. Also, capitalists aren't merely competing for labor and for buyers, they're also competing for capital, and the more effectively they can exploit labor the more capital they'll get from investors.

You need collective worker's institutions like trade unions to start dealing with these problems, but such institutions are highly flawed, as the Right has correctly pointed out. (The Right and their critique is actually what radicalized me, by pointing out the failures and inefficacies of moderate social democracy and trade unionism.)

The problem is in the idea of contracts. A contract between an entrepreneur and a laborer isn't a fair contract. The competition between workers trying to sell their labor-power is a lot greater than the competition between capitalists trying to buy labor-power, and that is why capitalists can get away with disgusting exploitation. Also, capitalists aren't merely competing for labor and for buyers, they're also competing for capital, and the more effectively they can exploit labor the more capital they'll get from investors.

You need collective worker's institutions like trade unions to start dealing with these problems, but such institutions are highly flawed, as the Right has correctly pointed out. (The Right and their critique is actually what radicalized me, by pointing out the failures and inefficacies of moderate social democracy and trade unionism.)
Then what solution would arise in a private market? Labour pooling cash together to create the enterprise?

You call me hate filled.

I will admit to hating to communists, anarchists, libertarians etc...

But I do that on the basis for what I know what anarchists and communists would do when they take power over society.

Your hate filled, just look at what you said.What? It's OK for you to express your desire to exterminate me some sort of vermin, but it isn't OK for me to object? Sod off.Basically your supportive of the fact that these violent youths can at will attack people on the basis that their victims may be better off than they are.I implied that you might deserve every bit of misfortune you'll run into. I never condoned muggings.The CEO of the firm I work for is richer than I am, does that give me the green light to steal from him and attack him?You're in a better position to answer that. I suppose you could stick a "I'm gay" note on his back & shoot him, if he bothers you.I saw some anarchist posters by the terrorist group in the UK that calls itself 'Class War'.

The poster had a picture of gravestones, with the slogan "New homes for the Rich".I take it you know for a fact that this "Class War" organisation have actually engaged in terrorist acts, right?
Anyway, what is your point? If you'd read my posts & the FAQ I likned to, you'd see there's a slew of different schools of thought in play here. We're not as uniform & singleminded as you fascists.Anarchists are such caring people, are they not:rolleyes:More than you are anyway. I've yet to see any anarchists promote genocide, social segregation & the abolishment of individual liberty.

But hey, let's just agree to quietly hate eachother from afar. I know you want to kill me & you know I'd run you out of the neighbourhood if given half a chance. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot to say.

Especially since your critique of anarchism isn't rooted in any sort of facts, but rather in your irrational hatred of all but yourself.

I believe that more experienced and skilled workers should be rewarded for their efforts, so I am not too concerned about this. Allowing retired workers greater shares for years of contribution would solve the need for pensions and the like. They would have built up a wealth basis to sustain themselves.

Don't you think that permitting an elitist system of management would lead inevitably to an ultimately unjust widening of the gap?

Again, I have no problem with tying monetary compensation to labor, as long as those incapable of labor are protected, but management of the economy should always be democratic. If you don't reward labor effort then only those who want to put effort into labor will put effort into labor, so it isn't like the proposal is somehow oppressive.

Paradoxically enough, he himself likes men too.

It's not paradoxical - it's sad. His kind is a dime a dozen at anonymous glory holes.

Don't you think that permitting an elitist system of management would lead inevitably to an ultimately unjust widening of the gap?
It would shift money to older workers, but when they stop their labour they will need it anyway. So no, I don't find it unjust. If someone works better than someone else, I think they should be rewarded for it.

Again, I have no problem with tying monetary compensation to labor, as long as those incapable of labor are protected, but management of the economy should always be democratic. If you don't reward labor effort then only those who want to put effort into labor will put effort into labor, so it isn't like the proposal is somehow oppressive.
Those incapable of labour would theoretically be protected, as the elderly would work to amass wealth and children would have their parents. Charities would continue to exist for exceptional circumstances, perhaps even financed by the worker-run corporations. Charity does not simply eclipse in capitalism.

Then what solution would arise in a private market? Labour pooling cash together to create the enterprise?

Capital accumulation, and thus capital investment, would be a function of the worker's councils administering the economy. At a rate the workers choose themselves, a portion of their income would be extracted, and used by worker-run institutions for the collective benefit. In this manner the revolutionization of technology and production that occurs in capitalism would continue, but only so much as the people want it.

It's not paradoxical - it's sad. His kind is a dime a dozen at anonymous glory holes.
Perhaps he'll accord himself greater dignity one day, and realise he is attempting an exercise in futility.

It would shift money to older workers, but when they stop their labour they will need it anyway. So no, I don't find it unjust. If someone works better than someone else, I think they should be rewarded for it.

I understand your argument for higher monetary compensation, I'm talking about the distribution of power.

Capital accumulation, and thus capital investment, would be a function of the worker's councils administering the economy. At a rate the workers choose themselves, a portion of their income would be extracted, and used by worker-run institutions for the collective benefit. In this manner the revolutionization of technology and production that occurs in capitalism would continue, but only so much as the people want it.
In theory it would actually be a worker-run form of capitalism. Which would be quite ideal.

I understand your argument for higher monetary compensation, I'm talking about the distribution of power.
How exactly would you see power distributed? I am interested because I'd like to better refine a form of workable anarcho-capitalism.

In theory it would actually be a worker-run form of capitalism. Which would be quite ideal.

I don't see how it would be capitalist at all. There would not be private ownership.

I don't see how it would be capitalist at all. There would not be private ownership.
The workers would own it privately still, at least their portion of the firm. Plus, it would retain the element of the free market.

How exactly would you see power distributed? I am interested because I'd like to better refine a form of workable anarcho-capitalism.

With a maximization of egalitarianism and democracy (by which I mean popular participation, not necessarily majority rule). Every adult human being has an equal voice, as far as is practical, in the management of collective institutions in which they are involved.

You try to concentrate power as much as possible on the basic self-management level. The factory's workers administer the factory themselves, with input from the community buying the products. In certain cases greater centralization is necessary, but such centralization must come from the bottom up, and only through the willing choice of the workers to partially delegate their power.

Those are the principles. I don't try to go much beyond that because I believe in the power of trial and error, in flexibility, and in democracy. The workers will make the decisions in my ideal utopia, not a left-wing theorist like me from the days when capitalism ran wild. Questions like "how much of a part will the market play," "how much do we want to centralize the economy," "how much do we want to invest," etc. are questions they will answer, not me.

With a maximization of egalitarianism and democracy (by which I mean popular participation, not necessarily majority rule). Every adult human being has an equal voice, as far as is practical, in the management of collective institutions in which they are involved.
So far I agree, definitely.

You try to concentrate power as much as possible on the basic self-management level. The factory's workers administer the factory themselves, with input from the community buying the products. In certain cases greater centralization is necessary, but such centralization must come from the bottom up, and only through the willing choice of the workers to partially delegate their power.
This would work well, provided the workers are well educated and able of making administrative decisions. Yet seeing as everyone will end up wealthier, education will be more widespread. They will, as you say, have to bend to consumer demand, as that is what ultimately drives business. This won't eclipse natural inequalities in society, but it will make things fairer. A natural elite will always exist insofar as genetic, nurture and behavioural differences exist between humans, although not in terms of administrative power. It will be judged more by its actual achievements and intellectual merit than merely being wealthy.

Those are the principles. I don't try to go much beyond that because I believe in the power of trial and error, in flexibility, and in democracy. The workers will make the decisions in my ideal utopia, not a left-wing theorist like me from the days when capitalism ran wild.
Decisions insofar as they run their businesses. All individuals will be able to freely conduct their private lives, insofar as they do not harm the liberty of others. It seems like an ideal system. The marriage of the free-market with socialist principles.

The workers would own it privately still, at least their portion of the firm. Plus, it would retain the element of the free market.Which is what I've been trying to advocate all along

EM, I think the two of us might in fact have very similar ideologies :)

Most folks can be proud without having a parade.

Just a thought.

Which is what I've been trying to advocate all along

EM, I think the two of us might in fact have very similar ideologies :)
Indeed. Now to see them put into practice.

Indeed. Now to see them put into practice.That's a very different problem indeed. I'm off to paint a flat in a bit, but I'd love to hear some proper ideas about it. As you might have noticed earlier, I'm a bit disillusioned about the whole thing these days. Instiration would be nice.

*puts on devil horns*

So what do you do with the industry baron who has built a successful company under the current regime? Say "Thanks for all your effort", and take it away to give to his/her workers?