NationStates Jolt Archive

http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/

I'm a Socialist!

http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/

I'm a Socialist!

Ditto.

Er... it's very wrong for the four choices it gives. I'm VERY far LEFT. It says that I'm very far right. Uh... NO. Sorry. Bad quiz.

Anarcho-Capitalist... haha, RIGHT.... *cough* SOCIALIST *cough* look at my nation *cough*

the quiz never lies....look in hte darkness within your heart

the quiz never lies....look in hte darkness within your heart

Face it. The quiz is crap. Trust me on this one - I am VERY FAR LEFT.

Hurray! I'm a fascist! :rolleyes:

Pity that it equates the hakenkreuz of National Socialism with Fascism, which is another thing entirely, but hey-ho.

Shit quiz to be frank. Oh well. The electronic webulator exists to waste time!

Face it. The quiz is crap. Trust me on this one - I am VERY FAR LEFT.

right...did you give your honest answers? try again...

You are a fascist
http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.gif"What: Fascism
Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum
How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.


hehehe...I'm a fascist.

right...did you give your honest answers? try again...

I did. Too few questions, and badly equated with answers. My preferred weapon: Money. Why? Because I'm a pacifist. Which is probably not what they were thinking.

Socialist

You are Fascist
Dead on for me.

- Eskertania

I cant believe it I was an anarcho capitalist

I hate capitalism and all its forms!godddamit!

ps funny poll-nice one!

Face it. The quiz is crap. Trust me on this one - I am VERY FAR LEFT.
me too, im NOT a capitalist!

me too, im NOT a capitalist!
That's what they all say. You'll learn, n00blet. :p

Socialist

Yea, that sounds about right...

Anarcho-capitalism. Yeah, okay.

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

Socialist, Big suprise.

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany

I got "Everyone hates you, even your mother" ....

What did I do wrong?!

Note Bene: I'm a dyed-in-the-wool anarcho, so being labelled a fasc is probably a hint of a fucked-up quiz. :P

Or at least, it would be, except I realised how shitty the quiz was and took the piss instead. :D

I got "Everyone hates you, even your mother" ....

What did I do wrong?!
well, it's more of the fact that you were born...

well, it's more of the fact that you were born...

Well I didn't want to stay where I was.

Boo-ya, facist.

Ancap FTW!

You are Anarcho-Capitalist

What: Anarcho-Capitalism

Where: At the distant top-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that big business should take over goverment to the point of government not existing. While they believe there should be law, they also believe that the law should be owned by businesses. Anarcho-capitalism is a modern belief and has never been



Sounds about right. I am minarchist, with monarchical tendencies too. None of that left-wing nonsense. :)

I'm a socialist, BITCH!!!

I'm a socialist BITCH!!!
Yes, that you are. ;)

Yes, that you are. ;)

I pwn you!!!! :eek:

Sounds about right. I am minarchist, with monarchical tendencies too. None of that left-wing nonsense. :)

Since I'm a radical leftist and an extreme anti-monarchist, I don't see how in the world we got the same result.

"I bow to no one" may have put me in that direction. Why in the world would you bow to your equal? If everyone is your equal, it follows that you bow to no one.

Captalist.

I pwn you!!!! :eek:
Got your words mixed up? It was I who just pwned you.

<---- You are Anarcho-Capitalist

Thats more left than right, right? I score really left when those tests dont include questions on immigration...

Since I'm a radical leftist and an extreme anti-monarchist, I don't see how in the world we got the same result.

"I bow to no one" may have put me in that direction. Why in the world would you bow to your equal? If everyone is your equal, it follows that you bow to no one.
You must be in the middle of an existential crisis. :p I didn't get the "Bow to your equal bit" either. It sounds silly and it makes no sense.

<---- You are Anarcho-Capitalist

Thats more left than right, right? I score really left when those tests dont include questions on immigration...
Welcome to the club. It is extremely right-wing. :p

Since I'm a radical leftist and an extreme anti-monarchist, I don't see how in the world we got the same result.

"I bow to no one" may have put me in that direction. Why in the world would you bow to your equal? If everyone is your equal, it follows that you bow to no one.

I did to! Maybe THAT'S what made me an "anarcho-capitalist!" As I said, bad quiz.

Welcome to the club. It is extremely right-wing. :p

No that silly test is wrong. Anything that begins with anarchy is extrememly leftist...

Face it. The quiz is crap. Trust me on this one - I am VERY FAR LEFT.
You are so far left you teleported to the right, duh!
--------------------------------------------------------------
W00T!!!
http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.htm
You are Fascist


What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum
http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.gif
How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

No that silly test is wrong. Anything that begins with anarchy is extrememly leftist...
Not true. Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism with no government (formal). It is non-authoritarian, but on the extreme right in terms of economics. Silly rabbit...

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

:eek: :D I KNEW IT!!!

You must be in the middle of an existential crisis. :p

Unlikely. The Internationale sounds as sweet as ever, even the weird Irish version that's playing on my computer right now.

I even selected the rather inaccurate and unbearingly sappy "Yes! Everybody is my friend" option; surely I got commie points for that.

Unlikely. The Internationale sounds as sweet as ever, even the weird Irish version that's playing on my computer right now.

I even selected the rather inaccurate and unbearingly sappy "Yes! Everybody is my friend" option; surely I got commie points for that.
The test is rather simplistic to be honest. Some of the answers on social freedoms can lead to the same conclusions. It wasn't thought out well enough.

Sorry, the only Policial quiz i take is the Political Compass one and i got the following on it (also in my Signiture):

My Political Compass: (http://www.politicalcompass.org) Econ. Left/Right: -5.38 || Social Liber./Authori.: -3.33

The test is rather simplistic to be honest. Some of the answers on social freedoms can lead to the same conclusions. It wasn't thought out well enough.

I don't think it was supposed to be. It reads as a joke.

But getting me as an anarcho-capitalist is really inexcusable. :)

Sorry, the only Policial quiz i take is the Political Compass one and i got the following on it (also in my Signiture):

My Political Compass: (http://www.politicalcompass.org) Econ. Left/Right: -5.38 || Social Liber./Authori.: -3.33
Afraid of what you might get?:D

this is a bad quiz, theres not enough questions, it seems it was badly thought out

I did take it. It's too simplistic, doesn't cover all the different types of political and economic systems.


P.S. it said i was a Neo Nazi when the political compas said i was a Social Libertarian and Economic Left. Lack of options mean the test sucks.

I did take it. It's too simplistic, doesn't cover all the different types of political and economic systems.


P.S. it said i was a Neo Nazi when the political compas said i was a Social Libertarian and Economic Left. Lack of options mean the test sucks.
You mean fascist. I got that too the second time. Not too surprising though. I do have authoritarian tendencies. It got it right with anarcho-capitalist either way.

<p ALIGN="center"><font SIZE="2" FACE="verdana"><b>You are Fascist</b><p ALIGN="center"><img SRC="http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.gif" WIDTH="45" HEIGHT="45"><p ALIGN="CENTER">What: Fascism<p ALIGN="CENTER">Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum<p ALIGN="CENTER">How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.<p ALIGN="CENTER"><A HREF="http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/">What political extremity are <i>you</i>?</A></p></font>

AH they didn't fail, they lost a war! probably would have lasted untill they had a civil rebellion.
PS.im not a facist

Got your words mixed up? It was I who just pwned you.

Well... you stink. You stink like a crazy monkey. :)

What: Anarcho-Capitalism

Where: At the distant top-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that big business should take over goverment to the point of government not existing. While they believe there should be law, they also believe that the law should be owned by businesses. Anarcho-capitalism is a modern belief and has never been attempted.

Heh...Nooooo... This quiz silly, methinks. Twould be more accurate if it had more questions(as others have said previously), and perhaps 1 or 2 more results(like absolute anarchism, for example). However, I am definitely glad this governmental form hasn't been attempted yet(supposedly-afterall, what current gov. would admit it?)as it sounds totally sucky. Can you imagine 2 countries, one owned by Wal-Mart&the other owned by McDonald's, for example, going to war? Hmmmm... *Pictures many Hamburglers sneaking into WalMart's headquarter's to steal their secret plans for.... erm... stuff, only to be thrwarted by robots they thought were merely the "useless" door-greeters.*
Oh, and has anyone besides me noticed how hard it is to get communism? If you really want it, answer the "Do you like people?" question with, "Yes! Everybody is my friend." Of course, you'll need to answer the other Q's with commie/socialist sounding stuff, but this one really can mean the difference between communism and socialism-and even communism and facism, depending on how you answered some of the others.

It says Im a facist. worst. quiz. ever.

I am a fascist. Oh wells.

*goes off to buy some red armbands*

Not true. Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism with no government (formal). It is non-authoritarian, but on the extreme right in terms of economics. Silly rabbit...
Tricks are for kids?

I got Fascist. Heil me. :P

What: Communism

Where: At the distant top-left of the politcal spectrum

How: Developed by German politicians Marx and Engels in the book The Communist Manifesto, communists believe that society should be run by the workers. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Russia, China, and North Korea.


This guy spelt 'political' wrong.

What: Anarcho-Capitalism

Where: At the distant top-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that big business should take over goverment to the point of government not existing. While they believe there should be law, they also believe that the law should be owned by businesses. Anarcho-capitalism is a modern belief and has never been attempted.

You are Anarcho-Capitalist

What: Anarcho-Capitalism

Where: At the distant top-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that big business should take over goverment to the point of government not existing. While they believe there should be law, they also believe that the law should be owned by businesses. Anarcho-capitalism is a modern belief and has never been attempted.



heh, good one.

I got Fascist, which is right for me, but I do think that the quiz is to short.

I'm a Facist i guess wich is true slightly.

This said I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, but 4 other quizzes say something along the lines of a Libertarian-Liberal Mix, so this quiz is probably at fault.

Welcome to the club. It is extremely right-wing. :p
Not really. It's pro-freedom, in all aspects. "Left" and "Right" doesn't apply, all that refers to is two sides in some ancient French parliament.

And by the way...if you have any reservations about immigration whatsoever you cannot be a minarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or any other type of capitalist. All you are then is just another conservative with no understanding of what he's advocating.

People need to stop kidding themselves. Capitalists cannot be racist or anti-immigration.

Not really. It's pro-freedom, in all aspects. "Left" and "Right" doesn't apply, all that refers to is two sides in some ancient French parliament.

And by the way...if you have any reservations about immigration whatsoever you cannot be a minarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or any other type of capitalist. All you are then is just another conservative with no understanding of what he's advocating.

People need to stop kidding themselves. Capitalists cannot be racist or anti-immigration.

Dogma. Dogmatic people tend to be conservative as well...What would a "green" anti immigrant be? Immigration views ranks superior to environmental views so they pull the person to conservative side??
And conservative to whom? There are billion light years of difference between American and Dutch conservatives....

How am I Anarcho-Capitalist?

You are Fascist

http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.gif

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.



That's very funny. I voted Green in the last election & would consider myself fairly far left!

Face it. The quiz is crap.

Let's see I voted:
Who do you bow down to?
No one

What is your position civil rights?
Everyone should recieve as many rights as they possibly can.

Which American political party do you favor?
Libertarians


The quiz comes back with:
You are Fascist

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

Yep, sucks hard vacuum.

edit: just noticed this:
Of course, keep in mind that this is not a true political quiz. If you want one of those go here.

That sends you to the infamously bad World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html). The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is not a real political quiz of any value...

Fascist here :X.

Hmmm.... apparently I'm a fascist!

*practices goose-step*

4 categories of sick puppies, and no MYRTH :eek:

I cant believe it I was an anarcho capitalist

I hate capitalism and all its forms!godddamit!

ps funny poll-nice one!hahaha. I couldn't get anarcho capitalist even when I tried. Originally I was a fascist, then I tweaked one of my answers and still got fascist, tweaked another and got communist, tweaked again and got communist. I decided to give it one more try and it gave me socialist. That quiz judt didn't want to give me anarcho-capitalist.

Meh, fascist it probably the closest. Deep down I think people suck and if people didn't suck then the free market would work quite well. However, people suck. But then again, I'm generally willing to give most people the chance to prove me wrong about their suckage, and to my suprise they sometimes even manage to surprise me.

Bah, I'm only really socialist when I'm around Blairites. I had one Blairite claim he was socialist simply because he also believed in nationalising the transport industry, especially the aviation industry. Idiot. The aviation industry is the only transport industry that allows for competition.

Let's see I voted:
Who do you bow down to?
No one

What is your position civil rights?
Everyone should recieve as many rights as they possibly can.

Which American political party do you favor?
Libertarians


The quiz comes back with:


Yep, sucks hard vacuum.

edit: just noticed this:


That sends you to the infamously bad World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html). The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is not a real political quiz of any value...You probably score points for the answers, and not answering a question means you score 0 points. Meaning you'll get the bottom band not matter you answered the other questions (which is probably fascism).

Hmmm, I actually said me equal for the first question. It's like a matter of respect. Which in the way I'm thinking about my answer, would mean it is effectively akin to the no one answer. I just can't really verbalise what I want to say.

Anarcho-Capitalist.

I'm communist...

I took the quiz. It said I was Romeo, a well skilled lover.

lmao...actually, i'm a socialist, albeit a democratic one.

You are Anarcho-Capitalist


What: Anarcho-Capitalism

Where: At the distant top-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that big business should take over goverment to the point of government not existing. While they believe there should be law, they also believe that the law should be owned by businesses. Anarcho-capitalism is a modern belief and has never been attempted.

fascist

wtf?

I took the quiz. It said I was Romeo, a well skilled lover.

where do i do that quiz?

:D

I'm a social of the distant bottom left of the spectrum. Right next to communism. Actually sounds about right.

fascist hee

You are Socialist

What: Socialism

Where: At the distant bottom-left of the politcal spectrum

How: Comparable to communism, socialism is an economically authoritarian political standpoint. Often, people are guaranteed jobs and given them, while workplaces are being closely regulated. Forms of it are currently instituted in many modern countries, and it is know to support the working class, but also implode economies.

Fair enough for most, but take a look at my economy...strong, if not very strong, and far from imploded.

Facism FTW bitches.

where do i do that quiz?

:D

I want that quiz too!!!

I don't like that quiz. It says I'm a fascist. I wanted to be a communist.

All the cool kids are communists...

I don't like that quiz. It says I'm a fascist. I wanted to be a communist.

All the cool kids are communists...

If all the cool kids, jumped of a cliff, would you do it too?

...How the fuck did I get Anarcho-Capitalist?

And conservative to whom? There are billion light years of difference between American and Dutch conservatives....
It doesn't matter. Any conservative will ultimately be like any other conservative in one thing: They disregard the individual.

They see "society" as an organism, as an organic whole that can be well or unwell, that can be hurt or destroyed, or rebuilt. Conservatism is the belief that society has to be protected, because change will hurt it.

Your favourite topic is immigration. You believe that the organic whole, ie Norwegian or European society, is under threat if foreigners come to live in these countries. That is change - change is unwelcome to you, therefore you are conservative on that issue.

Not that there is any ground whatsoever on which to base your belief. The only way one can think that way is by disregarding both the individual and common sense. Instead of judging people by their merits, you judge them by where they come from - because if foreign people come in, that somehow upsets your emotional world in which Norwegians are all white Christians.

No liberal or libertarian can be against immigration. There is no way to combine those two beliefs.

Not really. It's pro-freedom, in all aspects. "Left" and "Right" doesn't apply, all that refers to is two sides in some ancient French parliament.
I meant economically. It was just to give him some perspective.

And by the way...if you have any reservations about immigration whatsoever you cannot be a minarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or any other type of capitalist. All you are then is just another conservative with no understanding of what he's advocating.
I'm not against it. I just don't support it in an uncontrolled form. Even in private property anarchism (anarcho-capitalism), one must find a willing property seller to immigrate to a community. So the entire affair is at the mercy of the community's residents.

If all the cool kids, jumped of a cliff, would you do it too?
Pfft! Jumping off a cliff isn't cool. You don't know anything. :rolleyes:

I just don't support it in an uncontrolled form.
Uncontrolled by whom?
When you support NN in his ridiculous descriptions of foreigners as mentally retarded raping terrorists, you are advocating a government to generalise and rule about the lives of individuals with an iron fist.

Even in private property anarchism (anarcho-capitalism), one must find a willing property seller to immigrate to a community. So the entire affair is at the mercy of the community's residents.
At the mercy of one resident, not all of them. The only people who get to choose are the buyer and the seller, two rational individuals.

Uncontrolled by whom?
When you support NN in his ridiculous descriptions of foreigners as mentally retarded raping terrorists, you are advocating a government to generalise and rule about the lives of individuals with an iron fist.
Uncontrolled by a minarchist government, as in dismantling borders with no consideration of the economic consequences that such an action might have. I am all for immigration, so long as it is economically beneficial. And only then. Welfare-lite states wouldn't suffer from harmful immigration anyway, as only those immigrants willing to work would go to them. With anarcho-capitalism this would be a non-issue, but I do not support it anyway. It's too fanciful.As for the descriptions, I never said I supported them to begin with.

At the mercy of one resident, not all of them. The only people who get to choose are the buyer and the seller, two rational individuals.
Depends on the terms the community sets for those who wish to reside in it in the first place. But usually yes, that would be how it worked.

Uncontrolled by a minarchist government, as in dismantling borders with no consideration of the economic consequences that such an action might have.
Remember, a minarchist state doesn't give a shit about the economy. All it does is provide a basic level of security, and maybe some public goods.
Whether or not there are poor people there is none of its business. And besides - if you wanted to move freely around the world (and I think the problem is those that don't, because they happen to want to restrict the free movement of individuals), would you be happy when some government told you you couldn't?

As for the descriptions, I never said I supported them to begin with.
You have shown a propensity to support him that quite frankly I can't understand. You're giving up on yourself, dude.

Depends on the terms the community sets for those who wish to reside in it in the first place. But usually yes, that would be how it worked.
An community that wouldn't allow people to come and go freely, and to acquire property and sell it freely wouldn't be anarcho-anything.

Remember, a minarchist state doesn't give a shit about the economy. All it does is provide a basic level of security, and maybe some public goods.
Whether or not there are poor people there is none of its business. And besides - if you wanted to move freely around the world (and I think the problem is those that don't, because they happen to want to restrict the free movement of individuals), would you be happy when some government told you you couldn't?
It depends on the level of responsibilities you expect a minarchist state to assume. Like you yourself have said, minarchist simply means limiting government spending. I'm not minarchist to the point where I believe the government should ignore gross inequalities in income. Its point is to avoid having to create an extensive welfare regime; if its immigrants cause such a demand to arise, it defeats its very purpose. Depending on your view of a minarchist state, of course. Some believe, like you have stated, that its existence is limited to providing basic security and some public goods. If so, then it would not care. I am a minarchist in the sense that I believe the private market should take the lion's share of work in the economy, and remain out of its own citizens affairs, so far as it is sensible for it to do so.

An community that wouldn't allow people to come and go freely, and to acquire property and sell it freely wouldn't be anarcho-anything.
I am not inclined to believe anarcho-capitalism would remain pure in its form. So such deviations are more than likely. The fact that it could become corporate dominate invalidates the word "anarcho" anyway.

I was labelled Socialist.

In the linked quiz I scored:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%

They labelled me Liberal. Unfortunately in Australia Liberal is equivalent to American Republican, British Conservative or European Christian Democrat. But it's cleary a North American quiz so I am pleased.

Like you yourself have said, minarchist simply means limiting government spending.
If I said that, I was wrong. Minarchism is pretty clearly defined as wanting a "Night Watchman" sort of state.

I am a minarchist in the sense that I believe the private market should take the lion's share of work in the economy, and remain out of its own citizens affairs, so far as it is sensible for it to do so.
Then you're a small-government sort of person, but not a minarchist. And if you believe that a state should deny individuals the basic right to live where they want, you're conservative.

WTF - You are Fascist

If I said that, I was wrong. Minarchism is pretty clearly defined as wanting a "Night Watchman" sort of state.
Hmm...what would you then think of the inequalities in wealth levels that would arise? That is what bothers me most about minarchism. A welfare-free state wouldn't even have to worry about immigrants who weren't willing to work, so that concern would disappear.

Then you're a small-government sort of person, but not a minarchist. And if you believe that a state should deny individuals the basic right to live where they want, you're conservative.
My qualms with libertarianism are its indifference about economic inequality. I do not really care about inequalities in wealth levels myself personally. However, such a society would be far from utopian. It could quickly degenerate into corporate fascism.

Thats what I keep telling Europa, hes not a anarchist of any kid if he still wants government control, even if its limited. Hes simply more of a Conservative.

Thats what I keep telling Europa, hes not a anarchist of any kid if he still wants government control, even if its limited. Hes simply more of a Conservative.
But that just sounds boring. Saying you're an anarchist sounds much more interesting then just saying that you are a conservative...

EDIT: All the cool kids are anarchists.

Hmm...what would you then think of the inequalities in wealth levels that would arise?
I would think that it is none of my problem. I am confident in my ability to become rich.
I also see that so many of the people who don't have the money don't have it because they made stupid choices (like not finishing school).

A welfare-free state wouldn't even have to worry about immigrants who weren't willing to work, so that concern would disappear.
Dude, find me the immigrant who doesn't want to work. They are a strawman, they don't exist. The only reason there are more immigrants unemployed than native people is that there is racism and xenophobia going on, and because the education systems in some of the immigrants' original host countries suck.
Especially illegal immigrants will walk thousands of kilometres, make dangerous journeys on tiny boats and all the rest of it, just to get in. These are not lazy people!

I do not really care about inequalities in wealth levels myself personally.
I think you're pretending right now.

However, such a society would be far from utopian. It could quickly degenerate into corporate fascism.
You know as well as I do what fascism is, and what a corporation is. Don't use empty phrases for shock value.
It's conservatism that is deeply connected with this (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html), not libertarianism.

I would think that it is none of my problem. I am confident in my ability to become rich.
I also see that so many of the people who don't have the money don't have it because they made stupid choices (like not finishing school).
I detest the voluntarily poor. However, what about cases in which wealth is inherited? Or poverty? I am also confident in my ability to become rich. However, I see existing wealth inequalities, and without welfare how much worse they could become. This makes me wonder how long this system will last.


Dude, find me the immigrant who doesn't want to work. They are a strawman, they don't exist. The only reason there are more immigrants unemployed than native people is that there is racism and xenophobia going on, and because the education systems in some of the immigrants' original host countries suck.
Especially illegal immigrants will walk thousands of kilometres, make dangerous journeys on tiny boats and all the rest of it, just to get in. These are not lazy people!
There are those who do head to a country purely for its welfare system's generous offerings. These are parasites, and not immigrants.

I think you're pretending right now.

No, I really don't. What I do care about is the viability of the ideology if I am to support it. One which would allow inequality to exist will not remain popular for long.

You know as well as I do what fascism is, and what a corporation is. Don't use empty phrases for shock value.
It's conservatism that is deeply connected with this (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html), not libertarianism.
My point is corporations would gain a much greater deal of power than they have ever enjoyed. I am not so sure how good that is. Especially if they do not care about the environment and so on. Money practically equates power in such a system. Something I find fine and dandy, but it could end up becoming corporate-dominated.

What I've never understood is how an ardent belief in the free market can be combined with a reluctance to let workers sell their labor where they choose. The idea that the government should protect some workers from competition with other workers seems very anti-free market.

Conservatism, based as it is in the promotion of human inequality based on pointless abstract categories (nationality, religion, etc.) can be easily reconciled with this position, but libertarian capitalism can't.

IHowever, what about cases in which wealth is inherited? Or poverty?
People often talk about these things...but it doesn't really happen that often. Arguably it is easier to lose money than to make it, and incompetent rich kids won't enjoy their money a lot.
And people only inherit poverty if they inherit a mindset.

There are those who do head to a country purely for its welfare system's generous offerings. These are parasites, and not immigrants.
And I have never seen, nor met one. The only place I have seen them exist is in the minds of conervative demagogues.

No, I really don't. What I do care about is the viability of the ideology if I am to support it. One which would allow inequality to exist will not remain popular for long.
How viable does it have to be? All I want is that no one interfere with the way I want to live my life. I don't care about greater society, or any of these things.
And besides, if the government kept out of things, people would end up blaming the individuals who they perceive to have screwed them over - not the system itself. Economics only moves into politics if the government has its hands in the economy.

My point is corporations would gain a much greater deal of power than they have ever enjoyed.
Why? The proverbial power of corporations is pretty much entirely due to the connections between corporate and government leaders. If you took away the power of government, you take away the attractiveness of government as a partner for the corporation.
And then corporations are only as powerful as their own ability makes them, and their power is limited by the ability of their competitors.

Money practically equates power in such a system.
No, money equates power to influence people in life. Money (http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm) is the symbol of one person being able to help another person out with a good or service, in exchange for another good or service.

People often talk about these things...but it doesn't really happen that often. Arguably it is easier to lose money than to make it, and incompetent rich kids won't enjoy their money a lot.
And people only inherit poverty if they inherit a mindset.
Let's say, for one to enter a university one must have enjoyed a private school education. Let's further go on to add that the only way to get jobs in prestigious firms in any real position worth one's time is to possess a degree from said university. Now, if one cannot afford the private school tuition fees, and the university does not consider them adequately equipped for it on this basis, what chances do they have of succeeding professionally? What chances are there if one furthermore adds on that they cannot afford the university's fees? I know this is rather extreme a position, but it does show how external factors do come into play. Here, inherited wealth would be a boon. Naturally, one can break free from poverty if they want to. Always though? I am not so confident.

And I have never seen, nor met one. The only place I have seen them exist is in the minds of conervative demagogues.
I, on the other hand, have. Some even have the audacity to gloat about it.

How viable does it have to be? All I want is that no one interfere with the way I want to live my life. I don't care about greater society, or any of these things.
The problem is you are in the minority with such a view. I share it, but most people would never take to this. They are simply too used to having the government hold their hand. The concept of enlightened self-interest and maximum possible freedom is supported by those open-minded enough to stomach it. Ultimately, to me, this is a problem of selling the idea to the populace at large. I don't see this as easy, or even feasible.

And besides, if the government kept out of things, people would end up blaming the individuals who they perceive to have screwed them over - not the system itself. Economics only moves into politics if the government has its hands in the economy.
Well here I clearly agree.

Why? The proverbial power of corporations is pretty much entirely due to the connections between corporate and government leaders. If you took away the power of government, you take away the attractiveness of government as a partner for the corporation.
And then corporations are only as powerful as their own ability makes them, and their power is limited by the ability of their competitors.
Assuming that monopolies can only exist for prolonged periods under governments. Would this indeed be so in minarchism/anarcho-capitalism? Or would some monopolies persist, and strangle other corporations out? In a competitive market, of course corporations are weak. Yet such a market is the ideal, not the norm.

No, money equates power to influence people in life.
Considerable power, don't you think?

But that just sounds boring. Saying you're an anarchist sounds much more interesting then just saying that you are a conservative...

EDIT: All the cool kids are anarchists.
Ahh, the wonders of the Sex Pistols. :D

Let's say, for one to enter a university one must have enjoyed a private school education.
Already breaks down here. I never went to a private school, nor a particularly good school.
"Good schools" are something made up by parents trying to convince themselves that their money will make their kid a better person. The only thing that matters for a successful education is how much effort the student will put in.

I, on the other hand, have. Some even have the audacity to gloat about it.
Let me guess - second generation immigrant, high-school drop-out. In other words - just as at home in Britain as you are.

The problem is you are in the minority with such a view.
I don't give the slightest hint of a shit. I'm not compromising my views, or condoning government control over people's right to live wherever they want because the majority disagrees with me.

Assuming that monopolies can only exist for prolonged periods under governments. Would this indeed be so in minarchism/anarcho-capitalism?
If your assumption is true, yes.

Or would some monopolies persist, and strangle other corporations out? In a competitive market, of course corporations are weak. Yet such a market is the ideal, not the norm.
Quite aside from issues of efficiency...are you going to walk up to that entrepreneur, who worked all his life to make his business the best, the only one worthwhile in the market, and tell him "Sorry mate, the rest just aren't good enough to compete with you, we'll have to take your money and the product of your effort."

And besides, you need huge corporations in some industries for economies of scale. Do you want a perfectly competitive market (like in the textbook) for cars? And pay $50,000 for some Citycar because the firm is too small to mass produce them?

Considerable power, don't you think?
Obviously. The only way you can reliably make people do what you want is if they get something out of it.
Money is a medium of exchange, no more. Saying "money is power" is like saying "giving people something can entice them to do stuff". There is nothing morally, ethically or otherwise wrong with that.

And it has nothing to do with minarchism or communism - it's a universal fact of human existence.

That's funny I am a facist.

My granddad would be pissed. ;)

You are Fascist
http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/fascist.gifWhat: Fascism
Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

Meh. No big surprise. Hardly amusing for its simplicity. I think I can say with some certainty that it was a waste of time.

Already breaks down here. I never went to a private school, nor a particularly good school.
"Good schools" are something made up by parents trying to convince themselves that their money will make their kid a better person. The only thing that matters for a successful education is how much effort the student will put in.
Yet universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, had they been given their own way, would definitely give preference to private school students. Under straining government programmes they recruit 35% of their students from private schools; they find this stifling. There is an obvious bias. The Ivy League also has a preference for private school students.

Let me guess - second generation immigrant, high-school drop-out. In other words - just as at home in Britain as you are.
No, first generation.

I don't give the slightest hint of a shit. I'm not compromising my views, or condoning government control over people's right to live wherever they want because the majority disagrees with me.
To me it just seems pointless to believe in an ideology that can never be. I find minarchism, and in fact anarcho-capitalism, ideologically attractive. In practical terms? I see both as functional, but what must be done first is bringing such societies into existence. This is what I view as improbable. I will have to do more research before I can decide whether I will be a small-government conservative or go full blow libertarian.

If your assumption is true, yes.
Don't you mean it wouldn't be true? :confused:

Quite aside from issues of efficiency...are you going to walk up to that entrepreneur, who worked all his life to make his business the best, the only one worthwhile in the market, and tell him "Sorry mate, the rest just aren't good enough to compete with you, we'll have to take your money and the product of your effort."
If indeed it is because of a lack of ability to compete. What it can mean is that companies which can indeed compete with the monopolist, had the market been more open, will now have next to no chance to do so simply because of high market entry costs. The monopolist could easily crush opposition.

And besides, you need huge corporations in some industries for economies of scale. Do you want a perfectly competitive market (like in the textbook) for cars? And pay $50,000 for some Citycar because the firm is too small to mass produce them?
I have nothing against economies of scale, or alternate market forms such as monopolistic competition. I do take issue with absolute monopolies which have the power to over-charge and under-provide simply because they can.

Obviously. The only way you can reliably make people do what you want is if they get something out of it.
Money is a medium of exchange, no more. Saying "money is power" is like saying "giving people something can entice them to do stuff". There is nothing morally, ethically or otherwise wrong with that.

And it has nothing to do with minarchism or communism - it's a universal fact of human existence.
I am aware of this. Trust me, I am in no way suggesting there is something wrong with this. I am just questioning the appeal and desirability of a system in which some could increase this power beyond what they already have.

Money is a medium of exchange, no more. Saying "money is power" is like saying "giving people something can entice them to do stuff". There is nothing morally, ethically or otherwise wrong with that.

In any manifestation of it?

Fascist

There is an obvious bias. The Ivy League also has a preference for private school students.
You're going with statistics here. I'm telling you that statistics is not nearly as important as individual competence.
Quite aside from no one absolutely needing Oxford or Harvard to have a decent life, if a student really was that good and got the results a university wouldn't reject him or her because of the school they came from. That's what entry exams are for.

And now you could argue that private school results are better than public school results. I don't know whether or not that is true. But I can tell you that here in Oz private schools cheat the hell out of the system to get their students the best grades. Afterall, parents who think they need to send their kids to private schools are buying good grades, not an education.

No, first generation.
Explain.

I will have to do more research before I can decide whether I will be a small-government conservative or go full blow libertarian.
Judging from your current tendency for the irrational, you should probably choose the former.

Don't you mean it wouldn't be true? :confused:
Your assumption was that without government, there couldn't be monopolies. The obvious result would be that in anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be monopolies.

If indeed it is because of a lack of ability to compete. What it can mean is that companies which can indeed compete with the monopolist, had the market been more open, will now have next to no chance to do so simply because of high market entry costs. The monopolist could easily crush opposition.
Yep. Reality coming back to bite people in the arse yet again. What a shame.

If a new firm really is innovative and able enough to deserve to make it, they will. No one was ever going to be able to break IBM's monopoly over hardware manufacturing, remember?

I do take issue with absolute monopolies which have the power to over-charge and under-provide simply because they can.
And why can they? Because no alternative is there.

That's theory. In practice, people get pissed off and do find an alternative, even if it can take time.

I am just questioning the appeal and desirability of a system in which some could increase this power beyond what they already have.
You mean, you acknowledge that this is human nature, and then you question a system which promotes human nature?

What would you rather have? Something that goes against what people are and do?

In any manifestation of it?
You're gonna suggest all sorts of illegal things right now - but those are only ethically questionable because the person being bribed has previously agreed not to be bribed and to make decisions based on other criteria.
It's not the bribe that is the problem, it's the person going back on their promise.

You're gonna suggest all sorts of illegal things right now - but those are only ethically questionable because the person being bribed has previously agreed not to be bribed and to make decisions based on other criteria.
It's not the bribe that is the problem, it's the person going back on their promise.

I see. So if, say, hiring somebody to murder someone else was legal, there would be nothing wrong with doing it?

I see. So if, say, hiring somebody to murder someone else was legal, there would be nothing wrong with doing it?
The problem would be that someone is being murdered, which is taking something away from that someone.

There was a good example made by a few CSE dudes a while back: "If six million Jews signed a contract with the Nazis to get gassed, then there would be nothing wrong with the Holocaust."

Just about sums it up, I think. All you need for something to be moral is if both sides agree to it, and both sides stick to any commitments they made previously.

You're going with statistics here. I'm telling you that statistics is not nearly as important as individual competence.
Yet statistics do a good job of showing tendencies.

Quite aside from no one absolutely needing Oxford or Harvard to have a decent life, if a student really was that good and got the results a university wouldn't reject him or her because of the school they came from. That's what entry exams are for.
Entry exams do not exist in the UK. A levels do. Typically, private schools achieve better results for these, without cheating. They can't, anyway, since the exams are government regulated.

And now you could argue that private school results are better than public school results. I don't know whether or not that is true. But I can tell you that here in Oz private schools cheat the hell out of the system to get their students the best grades. Afterall, parents who think they need to send their kids to private schools are buying good grades, not an education.
In the UK they do tend to be better. Especially ones such as Eton.

Explain.
You mean to tell me you have never heard of people who actually plan to go on welfare? For instance, I do know people who have worked for a while, then decided that they are far better off on welfare. Some research it beforehand. Whether or not such a stance is transitive, it is the underlying reason for which they emigrate.

Judging from your current tendency for the irrational, you should probably choose the former.

I am simply considering which is easier to bring about. My tendencies are irrelevant for that purpose.

Your assumption was that without government, there couldn't be monopolies. The obvious result would be that in anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be monopolies.
But that was followed by a clause stating would corporations then, in anarcho-capitalism, be able to achieve monopolies, to which you answered "yes". That is what confused me.

Yep. Reality coming back to bite people in the arse yet again. What a shame.

If a new firm really is innovative and able enough to deserve to make it, they will. No one was ever going to be able to break IBM's monopoly over hardware manufacturing, remember?
Yet isn't IBM still operating under a government?

And why can they? Because no alternative is there.

That's theory. In practice, people get pissed off and do find an alternative, even if it can take time.
In the long-term perhaps, yes.

You mean, you acknowledge that this is human nature, and then you question a system which promotes human nature?

What would you rather have? Something that goes against what people are and do?
What I mean is that this has no appeal. Individuals want to hear of a system that will guarantee them some economic power. You and I both know that such promises tend to be empty, and counter-productive at best. The average person? They are swayed by these, and when confronted with the relative insecurity of anarcho-capitalism, they are intimidated. Again, this is something related with the probability of the system's debut into the real world.

Entry exams do not exist in the UK. A levels do. Typically, private schools achieve better results for these, without cheating. They can't, anyway, since the exams are government regulated.
Let me guess, you went to a private school.

When I mean cheating, I mean such things as hiring doctors, who then proceed to declare all sorts of dumb kids sick for the day of the final QCS test here, resulting in the school's average going up.

I'm not a fan of private schools. In theory, yes, but in practice they are meeting places for socialites and soccermums to use their kids' schools as something to boast about. Too many too dumb kids graduate from private schools without having any clue about how to work or think properly. I see it every day here at my uni. It's the kids from the public-, poorer schools who know their stuff, who earned their place at uni.
Based on statistics, I'd say you can bin most private school kids.

You mean to tell me you have never heard of people who actually plan to go on welfare? For instance, I do know people who have worked for a while, then decided that they are far better off on welfare. Some research it beforehand. Whether or not such a stance is transitive, it is the underlying reason for which they emigrate.
I believe that is called a non sequitur. Something along the lines of "some people plan to go on welfare" and "some people immigrate", therefore immigrants only come to take advantage of welfare.

Yet isn't IBM still operating under a government?
How close the links between IBM and governments were, I don't know. All I know is that they used to be the unquestioned rulers of the market for hardware, and they lost that position because efficient and innovative newcomers made it into the market.

http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/extremity/

I'm a Socialist!
I'm a Facist, apparently.

I'm guessing, judging by the posts I see throughout the thread, that people--SURPRISE SURPRISE!--didn't read the disclaimer at the top of the quiz telling them that this was not a serious quiz, that it was merely to see what extreme you might belong to. It was for a fun, a joke, not to be taken literally, etc. etc.

Let me guess, you went to a private school.
I did, yes.

When I mean cheating, I mean such things as hiring doctors, who then proceed to declare all sorts of dumb kids sick for the day of the final QCS test here, resulting in the school's average going up.
These sort of things are investigated in the UK. Some private schools do engage in them, yeah. But then so do some public schools, so as to attract more government funding.

I'm not a fan of private schools. In theory, yes, but in practice they are meeting places for socialites and soccermums to use their kids' schools as something to boast about. Too many too dumb kids graduate from private schools without having any clue about how to work or think properly. I see it every day here at my uni. It's the kids from the public-, poorer schools who know their stuff, who earned their place at uni.
Based on statistics, I'd say you can bin most private school kids.
In the UK private school educated tends to be better. I suppose, then, you'd prefer education to be publicly provided?

I believe that is called a non sequitur. Something along the lines of "some people plan to go on welfare" and "some people immigrate", therefore immigrants only come to take advantage of welfare.
Hardly. If you can find a country where your chances for gaining welfare are better, even if it means working for a while, and you possess such a mentality, the two concepts are linked. I am most definitely not saying this is common among immigrants. To say they never do so though is not true.

How close the links between IBM and governments were, I don't know. All I know is that they used to be the unquestioned rulers of the market for hardware, and they lost that position because efficient and innovative newcomers made it into the market.
Exactly. It could be that the government broke the monopoly. That could've helped end it.

The problem would be that someone is being murdered, which is taking something away from that someone.

So, then, you're willing to concede that limits to the power of money can be justified.

What if someone demonstrated to you that any minarchist capitalist society would result in corporations dominating the state and using it to manipulate the economy to their advantage? I think that's the argument Europa Maxima is advancing, and bringing up Ayn Rand's arguments against money being the root of all evil is nothing more than a straw man.

Just about sums it up, I think. All you need for something to be moral is if both sides agree to it, and both sides stick to any commitments they made previously.

And if a third side gets screwed over in the process? Who asked them to sign the contract?

And how can you ensure that the agreement wasn't coerced?

So, then, you're willing to concede that limits to the power of money can be justified.

What if someone demonstrated to you that any minarchist capitalist society would result in corporations dominating the state and using it to manipulate the economy to their advantage? I think that's the argument Europa Maxima is advancing, and bringing up Ayn Rand's arguments against money being the root of all evil is nothing more than a straw man.
Essentially, yes. That is what I mean. More so with regard to anarcho-capitalism than minarchism though, where companies could find it in their interest to collude and establish a regime suited to their desires. Minarchism, or even small government, could create safeguards against this as they still create laws. In anarcho-capitalism there are none.

In the UK private school educated tends to be better. I suppose, then, you'd prefer education to be publicly provided?
No, I'd prefer schools of all sorts to do a better job not giving incompetent people good results, as is frequently the case at the moment, particularly with private schools.
As you said, public schools can do this as well, so this has nothing to do with ownership. But I have seen enough private school customers, both kids and parents, make the most outrageous claims about the quality of their education to make me think that obviously private schools don't punish incompetence enough.
And why? The only reason I could come up with is that parents are not paying for an education, but for results.

That is however potentially quite an issue for the concept of the private school in itself, and I admit as much.

To say they never do so though is not true.
If you are going to use the welfare state as an argument against immigration, you will have to show a definite link between the two. As it is, a few native people are quite happy to live off welfare. So whether or not native people have kids who go on welfare, or foreigners come in and go on welfare is of no relevance, if the incidence isn't significantly different between the two groups.

Exactly. It could be that the government broke the monopoly. That could've helped end it.
Look it up. I doubt it.

You are Anarcho-Capitalist

So, then, you're willing to concede that limits to the power of money can be justified.
No, I concede that some actions (like murdering someone) can't be justified. As I said, my issue is not with hiring the guy, but with the intent of murdering someone.

What if someone demonstrated to you that any minarchist capitalist society would result in corporations dominating the state and using it to manipulate the economy to their advantage?
I don't see how you could demonstrate such a thing, but you're free to try.
But even then, personally I can't see how that would be any worse than what I have to put up with right now.

I think that's the argument Europa Maxima is advancing, and bringing up Ayn Rand's arguments against money being the root of all evil is nothing more than a straw man.
The link was a mere indication to not think of money as anything but a medium of exchange. There are no moral or ethical aspects to the concept of money. It wasn't my argument, just a reminder not to revert to "money = bad" hysteria.

And if a third side gets screwed over in the process? Who asked them to sign the contract?
Then we have the Coase Theorem to come to the rescue.

And how can you ensure that the agreement wasn't coerced?
Through the previously mentioned minarchist state providing security.
As for "economic coercion"...I don't believe in that sort of thing. If I don't pay my rent, people will throw me out of this house. You can call it coercion if you want, but to me that's fair play.

No, I'd prefer schools of all sorts to do a better job not giving incompetent people good results, as is frequently the case at the moment, particularly with private schools.
As you said, public schools can do this as well, so this has nothing to do with ownership. But I have seen enough private school customers, both kids and parents, make the most outrageous claims about the quality of their education to make me think that obviously private schools don't punish incompetence enough.
And why? The only reason I could come up with is that parents are not paying for an education, but for results.

That is however potentially quite an issue for the concept of the private school in itself, and I admit as much.
Then, fundamentally, what you are calling for is a change in what universities look for in students. I agree with you. If they looked for more well-rounded students as opposed to high-scorers, perhaps then private (or even public) schools which functioned in such a manner would be driven into the ground. Admittedly, the Ivy Leagues do look at your entire school record and achievements; more than Oxbridge do. They are the minority though.


If you are going to use the welfare state as an argument against immigration, you will have to show a definite link between the two. As it is, a few native people are quite happy to live off welfare. So whether or not native people have kids who go on welfare, or foreigners come in and go on welfare is of no relevance, if the incidence isn't significantly different between the two groups.
I am not using the welfare state for such a purpose. I was just saying that to say that no immigrant ever seeks to abuse it in such a way is quite fanciful indeed. As for native people who go on to welfare (be they descendants of immigrants or ancestral natives) when they could work, all I can say for them is they are leeches and parasites. The problem is with the welfare state, not immigration itself.

Look it up. I doubt it.
I will. Even so, it is one isolated example.

You are Fascist

What: Fascism

Where: At the distant bottom-right of the politcal spectrum

How: Fascism supports total civil opression, particularly for minorities, who were prosecuted. However, it does open up to a free market. It has been attempted and failed in countries including Italy, and socialist version of it called Nazism was tried in Germany.

This is ironic, given my anarcho-capitalist ideals...

I am not using the welfare state for such a purpose. I was just saying that to say that no immigrant ever seeks to abuse it in such a way is quite fanciful indeed. As for native people who go on to welfare (be they descendants of immigrants or ancestral natives), all I can say for them is they are leeches and parasites. The problem is with the welfare state, not immigration itself.
Right. Perhaps you can then come to your senses and quit defending Ny Nordland against attacks.

That guy is a racist and a xenophobe. I know it, everybody else knows it. And you should know it as well. He's the natural enemy of the libertarian, if you will.

i dun really care:) :) :)

i dun really care:) :) :)

Best first post ever.

No, I concede that some actions (like murdering someone) can't be justified. As I said, my issue is not with hiring the guy, but with the intent of murdering someone.

So would you or would you not prohibit hiring a person to kill someone else?

I don't see how you could demonstrate such a thing, but you're free to try.
But even then, personally I can't see how that would be any worse than what I have to put up with right now.

I'm not asking you whether minarchism is preferable to what you have to put up with now. I don't think Europa Maxima is, either. The point being made is that a mostly minarchist government that takes that factor into account is preferable to a purely minarchist model.

The link was a mere indication to not think of money as anything but a medium of exchange. There are no moral or ethical aspects to the concept of money. It wasn't my argument, just a reminder not to revert to "money = bad" hysteria.

Nobody engages in "money = bad" hysteria. Well, that's probably false, but in the vast majority of cases the argument being advanced is not "Oh, look! Commodities being exchanged! Burn the witch!" It tends to deal with the capabilities money offers to those who possess it, not its intrinsic nature.

Then we have the Coase Theorem to come to the rescue.

Here's the question I would like an answer to: can you define a point at which contractual agreement is no longer necessary? On what basis do you draw the line there, and not elsewhere?

I don't believe total consensus is necessary for decision-making, but I would say that any decision that meaningfully and significantly affects a person's behavior or circumstances should enable that person to participate in the decision-making process. I would go as far to say that that capability is essential to freedom.

Through the previously mentioned minarchist state providing security.
As for "economic coercion"...I don't believe in that sort of thing. If I don't pay my rent, people will throw me out of this house. You can call it coercion if you want, but to me that's fair play.

You can call it what you want; forcing someone to alter their behavior is coercion. You can argue that it's justified, and you might be right, but it's still coercion.

Right. Perhaps you can then come to your senses and quit defending Ny Nordland against attacks.

Perhaps we could all refrain from attacking other folks...

So would you or would you not prohibit hiring a person to kill someone else?
I would prohibit someone murdering someone else.

The point being made is that a mostly minarchist government that takes that factor into account is preferable to a purely minarchist model.
Ordoliberalism vs Classical Liberalism.

Hong Kong is an example of a pretty minimalist sort of state. As far as economics is concerned, the government keeps out of people's lives and has done so for many decades. But it never looked like corporations were ruling Hong Kong, because corporations had nothing to gain from linking up with the government, and because the government kept its monopoly on violence.

Either way, it doesn't justify income redistribution of course, or the existence of a welfare state.

It tends to deal with the capabilities money offers to those who possess it, not its intrinsic nature.
But these capabilities are the result of ability and making the right choices, taking advantage of opportunities and just generally being successful.
If you criticise that, you criticise success.

Here's the question I would like an answer to: can you define a point at which contractual agreement is no longer necessary? On what basis do you draw the line there, and not elsewhere?
Contractual agreement can be both explicit (ie either written or oral) and implicit (by not disagreeing and putting disagreement into action).
In both cases it is simply an acknowledgement that that person believes that he or she will be no worse, and probably better, off when the transaction is made.
Given that, no, as long as a person doesn't violate another person's rights and is dealt with by the minarchist government, he or she can only be subjected to a transaction when he or she agrees to it.

I don't believe total consensus is necessary for decision-making, but I would say that any decision that meaningfully and significantly affects a person's behavior or circumstances should enable that person to participate in the decision-making process. I would go as far to say that that capability is essential to freedom.
And the Coase Theorem allows just that. If something bothers you, you are free to go and speak to the source of the problem, and find a solution, probably amounting to a payment at most equal to the value of the problem to you.

You can call it what you want; forcing someone to alter their behavior is coercion. You can argue that it's justified, and you might be right, but it's still coercion.
I suppose so. But I don't see a world in which coercion doesn't exist as being possible.
If one side agrees to a trade, and then does not comply with the terms, there needs to be some form of coercive power in the hand of the other party.
To come back to my rent example: If I don't pay the rent I agreed to pay, I get kicked out. That is, my landlord coerces me to pay my rent.
And vice versa, my landlord has agreed to supply me a house with air conditioning. If the air conditioning doesn't work, and the landlord doesn't get it repaired, I can refuse to pay that extra rent until a solution is found. It's all in the contract.

Perhaps we could all refrain from attacking other folks...
I never attacked anyone. I just think that Europa overstepped the mark between simply being against an attack and actually supporting the attacked.

Too many of his recent comments have sounded too far-right for my liking. It worries me, and I made that point. Ny Nordland isn't even the issue, it's more Europa's attitude towards the things Nordland says.

I never attacked anyone. I just think that Europa overstepped the mark between simply being against an attack and actually supporting the attacked.
Indeed you did not.

Too many of his recent comments have sounded too far-right for my liking. It worries me, and I made that point. Ny Nordland isn't even the issue, it's more Europa's attitude towards the things Nordland says.
Just out of curiosity -and by this I intend no offence- why would my attitudes (any of them) worry you? Whatever I do in the end is confined to my person.

I would prohibit someone murdering someone else.

So you have no problem with people deliberately providing an incentive to murder, just with the actual murder?

Ordoliberalism vs Classical Liberalism.

Hong Kong is an example of a pretty minimalist sort of state. As far as economics is concerned, the government keeps out of people's lives and has done so for many decades. But it never looked like corporations were ruling Hong Kong, because corporations had nothing to gain from linking up with the government, and because the government kept its monopoly on violence.

You haven't noticed all the corporations lobbying for subsidies and tariffs?

Either way, it doesn't justify income redistribution of course, or the existence of a welfare state.

I didn't say it did.

But these capabilities are the result of ability and making the right choices, taking advantage of opportunities and just generally being successful.
If you criticise that, you criticise success.

No. I'm criticizing the results of success. I don't think someone's success should give them the right to interfere with anyone else's success.

Contractual agreement can be both explicit (ie either written or oral) and implicit (by not disagreeing and putting disagreement into action).
In both cases it is simply an acknowledgement that that person believes that he or she will be no worse, and probably better, off when the transaction is made.
Given that, no, as long as a person doesn't violate another person's rights and is dealt with by the minarchist government, he or she can only be subjected to a transaction when he or she agrees to it.

Well, I didn't say "subject to." I said "affected by."

If various corporations are making decisions that significantly coerce my behavior or alter my circumstances, I have the right to participate in them.

And the Coase Theorem allows just that. If something bothers you, you are free to go and speak to the source of the problem, and find a solution, probably amounting to a payment at most equal to the value of the problem to you.

So I have to bribe the source of my problem so that it'll stop affecting me. I see.

Why should I have to? Don't I have a right to control my life independent of having to pay people to stop messing with it?

I suppose so. But I don't see a world in which coercion doesn't exist as being possible.

I don't either. We agree on this point.

If one side agrees to a trade, and then does not comply with the terms, there needs to be some form of coercive power in the hand of the other party.
To come back to my rent example: If I don't pay the rent I agreed to pay, I get kicked out. That is, my landlord coerces me to pay my rent.
And vice versa, my landlord has agreed to supply me a house with air conditioning. If the air conditioning doesn't work, and the landlord doesn't get it repaired, I can refuse to pay that extra rent until a solution is found. It's all in the contract.

But why be subject to your landlord at all? Did he build the house?

I never attacked anyone. I just think that Europa overstepped the mark between simply being against an attack and actually supporting the attacked.

Given what I've seen of your posting I would not expect that you had attacked NN. :)

But I see nothing wrong with EM's behavior either. He can defend whomever he likes, regardless of their ideology and my personal distaste for it, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm also not worried that he is too far-right, but that may just be a difference in our respective political climates that form our frames of reference on these issues.

Fascist. Nevermind how I picked all libertarian, peace and/or love choices.

Just out of curiosity -and by this I intend no offence- why would my attitudes (any of them) worry you? Whatever I do in the end is confined to my person.
Because I think it would be a waste. And not only that, but I have made it one of my personal missions to fight against racism, xenophobia and general stupidity. As long as I don't force anyone to comply with my world view, I'm free to debate, criticise and discuss whatever I want.

So you have no problem with people deliberately providing an incentive to murder, just with the actual murder?
Yes. I don't think intention can be a crime.

You haven't noticed all the corporations lobbying for subsidies and tariffs?
But in a minarchist state there are no subsidies and tariffs to apply for.

No. I'm criticizing the results of success. I don't think someone's success should give them the right to interfere with anyone else's success.
But that's impossible in a world in which resources are ultimately limited. Only the most successful really make it, although many somewhat successful people can live quite well.

Well, I didn't say "subject to." I said "affected by."

If various corporations are making decisions that significantly coerce my behavior or alter my circumstances, I have the right to participate in them.
Have a look at this paper (http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf). It won the guy the Nobel Prize, and it's not too long.

Why should I have to? Don't I have a right to control my life independent of having to pay people to stop messing with it?
Just as you have the right to live your lie independently of a storm blowing your house down, or a lightning striking you dead.

But why be subject to your landlord at all? Did he build the house?
He probably helped. But he certainly either paid those who did, or he paid those who owned it before.
Either way, he owns the house because he exchanged the product of his work for it.

Because I think it would be a waste. And not only that, but I have made it one of my personal missions to fight against racism, xenophobia and general stupidity. As long as I don't force anyone to comply with my world view, I'm free to debate, criticise and discuss whatever I want.
Alright. I was simply curious.


Have a look at this paper (http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf). It won the guy the Nobel Prize, and it's not too long.
What does the theorem concern exactly?

I am and always will be a Socialist down to my very soul!

What does the theorem concern exactly?
Read the paper. It concerns externalities of all kinds - the first part concerns a perfect economics-type world, the later part discusses more realistic situations.

Fascist ..

It says I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Which is actually very close since I consider myself a Libertarian, with Anarchist leanings!

Crush the State! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/mp5.gif
:mp5:

Crush the State! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/sniper.gif
:sniper:

Socialist.

What: Fascism

haha

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I'm a Fascist, apparently

Facism FTW bitches.
*Dances*

Im a facist apparently.

...
Half true i suppose in the Nazi sense.

I am a nationalist and a socialist. (Nazi)
i just dont agree with mass-genocide

Indeed you did not.


Just out of curiosity -and by this I intend no offence- why would my attitudes (any of them) worry you? Whatever I do in the end is confined to my person.

He's concerned that you might go to Germany and become the next führer :D Especially with your political compact economy score, it's worrying.
NL, None of us are arguing anything violent. If you are the libertarian/leftist/stupidity fighter you claim to be, be more careful b4 you label people....