NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, obviously since we are on this site, many of us like to prescribe to a particular ideology's or political party/group's name, but honestly, do you agree, word-for-word, with the beleifs of the entire political theory? Probably not. I'm sure you might dissent slightly from some of the beleifs of your particular version of what the world requires politically.

So, what's your personal politics?

Influence(s): Mahatma Ghandi, Vladmir Lenin, Dutch and Scandinavian socialism and Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Economy: Ideally, state-owned. However, whatever amount of work you put in will the amount of pay you receive back for your effort.There's a standard wage level, but none of this 'collective' payments, where there's no incentive to work because of a few bad apples that bring down the whole. Work is offered to anyone who is qualified and willing to do so. If you are unemployed through reasons that you were not directly responsible for, you will be taken of by the goverment welfare until you are able to find a job, which the government will try and assist you in doing so. If you do not accept the new job offer, you will be given a maximum of 3 months(depending on your circumstances) to find a job.

Religion: Ideally, secular to the point that it does not matter. There will be no government sponsored religion nor will there be a forceful removal of indiviusual citizens right to do what they want within any governmentally recognised religon's standard rituals. No religion will be supressed. No one can insult any religion's beleifs, prophets,etc. Religions that are deemed to be cults (Scientology, Satanism, any religious fundementalism,etc.) are banned. Cults are determined to be so if they cause supported harm to the government or its citizens.

Government: Ideally, a direct and full participatory democracy. All elections are determined through citizen votes. Vote checkers are selected from anonymous,qualified and thoroughly checked citizens who will be isolated until votes are counted. However, since this difficult to organize, a representative democracy may be pursued.

Tax Money: Education, Environmental Conservation, Law Enforcement and Social Welfare are the main concerns of the government. A good chunk of the remainder will go to the military, just to keep it up to date.

Drugs: Legal, but current drug takers cannot run for any political positions or join the military.Former drug takers are not a part of this group.Otherwise, people are free to do as they wish.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage is recognised as equal to Heterosexual marriages, and adoption of children for gay couples is permissable. Homosexual citizens have all the rights of heterosexual citizens.

Abortion: Dependent on the unanimous decision of the couple.If the couple differs, whichever parent wants the child may keep it.If the biological father is unavailible for any reason during the pregnancy, then the mother chooses what to do with her child.If neither parents wants the child, adoption is also availible.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged, for both homo- and hetero-sexual couples. Child abuse is illegal, however, children must obey their parents or gaurdians, unless the parents are deemed irresponsible by the government.As with driving a car, potential parents must take a parental test to get a license to see if they are qualified to raise future citizens.A government representative will check on the couple every year or so.

Immigration: Immigration is open to all citizens from all nations, as long as the government finds them a good asset to the nation and are able to fit them into the nation.

Well, obviously since we are on this site, many of us like to prescribe to a particular ideology's or political party/group's name, but honestly, do you agree, word-for-word, with the beleifs of the entire political theory? Probably not. I'm sure you might dissent slightly from some of the beleifs of your particular version of what the world requires politically.

So, what's your personal politics?

Influence(s): Mahatma Ghandi, Vladmir Lenin, Dutch and Scandinavian socialism and Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Economy: Ideally, state-owned. However, whatever amount of work you put in will the amount of pay you receive back for your effort.There's a standard wage level, but none of this 'collective' payments, where there's no incentive to work because of a few bad apples that bring down the whole. Work is offered to anyone who is qualified and willing to do so. If you are unemployed through reasons that you were not directly responsible for, you will be taken of by the goverment welfare until you are able to find a job, which the government will try and assist you in doing so. If you do not accept the new job offer, you will be given a maximum of 3 months(depending on your circumstances) to find a job.

Religion: Ideally, secular to the point that it does not matter. There will be no government sponsored religion nor will there be a forceful removal of indiviusual citizens right to do what they want within any governmentally recognised religon's standard rituals. No religion will be supressed. No one can insult any religion's beleifs, prophets,etc. Religions that are deemed to be cults (Scientology, Satanism, any religious fundementalism,etc.) are banned. Cults are determined to be so if they cause supported harm to the government or its citizens.

Government: Ideally, a direct and full participatory democracy. All elections are determined through citizen votes. Vote checkers are selected from anonymous,qualified and thoroughly checked citizens who will be isolated until votes are counted. However, since this difficult to organize, a representative democracy may be pursued.

Tax Money: Education, Environmental Conservation, Law Enforcement and Social Welfare are the main concerns of the government. A good chunk of the remainder will go to the military, just to keep it up to date.

Drugs: Legal, but current drug takers cannot run for any political positions or join the military.Former drug takers are not a part of this group.Otherwise, people are free to do as they wish.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage is recognised as equal to Heterosexual marriages, and adoption of children for gay couples is permissable. Homosexual citizens have all the rights of heterosexual citizens.

Abortion: Dependent on the unanimous decision of the couple.If the couple differs, whichever parent wants the child may keep it.If the biological father is unavailible for any reason during the pregnancy, then the mother chooses what to do with her child.If neither parents wants the child, adoption is also availible.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged, for both homo- and hetero-sexual couples. Child abuse is illegal, however, children must obey their parents or gaurdians, unless the parents are deemed irresponsible by the government.As with driving a car, potential parents must take a parental test to get a license to see if they are qualified to raise future citizens.A government representative will check on the couple every year or so.

Immigration: Immigration is open to all citizens from all nations, as long as the government finds them a good asset to the nation and are able to fit them into the nation.

Influences: Victor David Hanson, Barry Goldwater, John F Kennedy.

Economy: Government interference to keep companies from making monopolies and things like child labor, but besides that, free trade all the way!

Religion: Complete freedom of religion. If a judge in Alabama wants his ten commandments in his courtroom, so be it.

Government: American democracy. Worked well so far, hasn't it?

Tax Money: The military, Education, Law and Order are the major ones.

Drugs: Legalize all drugs. Let people decide what they want to put in their bodies.

Gay Rights: Full rights for gays.

Abortion: Considered immoral, but no government interference at all.

Immigration: Only those immigrants with highly needed skills (doctors, engineers, teachers) are allowed.

There that about covers it!

political compass: didn't survive the trip south from the top of the tree

the broken needle is somewhere around moderate. pro-taxes, moderately pro-"Big Brother", anti-selfish idiots, which fills out most of the other categories.

Influences: Many different ones

Economically: I am a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Some things, like railways,airlines,utilities, post servic(yes i changed my mind about that from the other day), health care, and education should be totally government based, paid through taxes. Most other things though should be competitive, like the automobile market, or whatever. I tend to favour a medium ammount of taxation.

religion: Equal for all. Don't prohibit nor support. This includes all religious belief systems including those people that don't beleive in dieties. As such, free speech is ensured, so the criticism of any holy book, person, or so on, is allowed, yet violence is not.

government: Cut all the pork barrel legislation. Cut all the restraints to get in office, especially age. there are some younger people that are more capable then our current leaders. I have a varied view about many other things in gov't which i won't explain now :p


drugs/gay rights/ abortion- I'd leave it up to the individual states to decide(if i was like prez or something)

Immigration- Is should be made more easy, and free to go though with.

Im too lazy to go on

My politics are as simple as my voting. I am for me and vote against anyone who seems to be against my best interests in the long run. If some part of a given candidate/party/political philosophy neither affects nor interests me I can blissfully ignore that part rather than developing strong unwavering viewpoints on it. If some point does affect me or for some other reason interests me I will gather a strong viewpoint. These sometimes change but I try not to take that into account during a given instant or election. This is possibly a little too Hooray-for-me-and-screw-you for some of the more altruistic among us to condone, but I think it is the most honest way to tell a representative government what I really want from it. Besides, the vast majority of the altruistic folks that I've gotten to know at a deeper level over time are a lot less committed to altruistic deeds than they are committed to altruistic appearances. Not all of them though, just the majority.

Top priority: Global Warming.

Abortion: Leave it up to the states.

Let doctors have access to marijuana, or whatever they need, to care for their paitents.

Try to encourage Mexico to join US.

Education: Free college for anyone for one year (provided they pass an entrance exam) and easy student loans if got good grades.

Overseas policy?........Well hell, just have to take that one day at a time.

Influence(s): Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Karl Marx, Marxism, feminism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, and anarcho-primitivism.

Economy: Socially-owned (on the commune level) worker self-managed "companies" held accountable to consumers by a combination of market mechanisms and democratic accountability

or:

highly decentralized village-based anarcho-communism based on completely voluntary labor, sharing of the fruits of production, and the utter abolition of economic compulsion and inequality.

I prefer the second, but I'm not sure if we can get there from here.

Religion: Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Government: Decisions made through direct democracy on the commune level by voluntarily associating individuals. Universal suffrage, and some means of including children and teenagers in the process.

Tax Money: No taxes, as social ownership of the means of production will be used to derive funds for collective endeavours.

Drugs: Legal, but with treatment for addicts who seek it.

Gay Rights: Full and complete equality.

Abortion: Up to the mother.

Child Laws: It is legitimate to restrain them when they are in danger of directly harming others or themselves. Otherwise, they should be given complete freedom.

Immigration: No one is illegal. Open borders.

Ideology: Anarcho-capitalist

Influences: Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbald, Grover Cleveland, Ayn Rand, Lew Rockwell

Well, everything else is pretty obvious. Economy being 100% privately owned, no worker protection type laws, or anything. Basically coming from the beleif that a job is nothing but an offered trade, and if you hire someone 6 years old in dangerous conditions for $2 a week, they have the right to reject it freely. If the worker is worse off doing the job then he was before he took it, he wouldn't have taken it. If he's better off, he owes his employer his thanks. As far as discrimination goes, well, if I own a factory the jobs are mine to hand out to who I want. Hiring based on discrimination is however a bad economic decision and will for the most part not be a problem.

Relgion: Nothing to stop you from worshipping what/how you want as long as you don't harm others.

Government/taxes: Non-existant in the conventional use of the term. Police and services of that sort would be privitized and paid for by VOLUNTARY funding, not cumpoulsory.

Immigration: Fully free, no fence between lands to keep people in or out unless you own the land on the border.

Everything else is basically self-explanitory.

Influence(s): John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, John Locke, Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr. Buddha, Hobbes, Socrates, Voltaire, Jeremy Bentham, Machiavelli, Karl Marx, Plato, Nietzsche

Economy: A liberal market emphasizing free trade and government enforcement of fair competition supported by an extensive welfare state and basic services for those that can not afford them paid through taxation of the wealthy and large inheritances.

Religion: Government should stay out of religion, period, and religion should be monitored and restrained to ensure that it does not interfere with government. Churches should be taxed.

Government:A large powerful state controlled by an autocrat raised from birth to lead and selected by a panel of the most intelligent men and women in the country.

Tax Money: Education, healthcare and the elimination of poverty should be the main objectives. Extensive Law enforcement will still be required mostly to protect rights not fight crime, as the major cause, poverty, will have been eliminated. A military force made up of a powerful air force, an adequate nuclear arsenal, a competent navy and highly trained special ops is necessary.

Drugs: Marijuana, tobacco, shrooms, LSD , meth and alcohol completely legal. May consider restrictions on opiate dealers due to the origins of such drugs and the activities they fund unless it can be shown that an adequate supply is willing to be produced by legitimate businesses.

Gay Rights: Why the fuck not?

Abortion:If the mother wants an abortion, sure. If the father doesn’t want the child, but the mother does, then the father will be allowed a Paternal abortion, waiving all rights and responsibilities for the child. The state will pay child support.

Immigration: The free movement of human beings pwns.

Influences: Socrates, Voltaire, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., Caesar Chavez, etc.

Economy: Corporations should have no influence over government, and, in addition, they should be conciensious of the people/environment/nations they will effect. It is their responsability to have no negative impact to those entities.

Religion: I believe that religion should not interfere with politics nor policies. Seperation of church from state is essential in almost all circumstances. (The almost is for cases like Vatican City or safehavens such as Israel.) Either way, it remains necessary that countries and their governments are secular.

Government: A Three-branch hierarchtical republic with a written (and binding) Constitution. -Note: By "hierarchtical republic," I mean a situation such as exists in the United States, where the counties opperate above (though with little authority over) the cities, and the states have the authority of a government itself (They are also republics.) but remain seperate, though underneath, the federal government (an even larger republic). There also neads to be a more complete seperation of the three branches. For example, the President should not select the Supreme Court Justices, nor should they serve for life. There should be ten initial candidates selected by congress (Ten to ensure that the candidates have views across party lines.). These should then be voted on by the people whose votes would be subdivided into a maximum (by their own choice) of 14 meta-votes. They may vote for five candidates (Hence the maximum; if they vote for fewer, their meta-votes reflect that.) in a system looking something like this: Your first choice gets five; your second choice gets four; your third choice gets three; your forth choice gets two; and your fifth choice gets one. Obviously, the candidate with the most meta-votes wins, though the term is not for life, but rather for seven years (to cross-contaminate the political reversal that tends to occur (predictably) about every decade.). As a little note, they will only get one term (This lack of the possibility of re-election will presumably stop them from making decisions for the sole reason that they are popular. (Presidents and Congressmen do that all the time.) I realize this sounds miserably convoluted, and it is, but it is (in my opinion) a good way of stopping the melding of two of the government's branches. Just think about it. As one final insertion, the congressional lobbies should be closed to the public to attempt to at least restrain such direct of the corprate lobbyists with the congressmen.

Tax Money: Taxes would presumably be somewhat high (not as high as in Congressional Dimwits where the tax rate was literally a joke), because there would be a lot of attention paid to education and social services (such as public healthcare). Though it would be a progressive system (tax rate rises as income does), it would never exceed 60% (That would only be for billionares.). It would be nothing like that Scandinavian country where a director made so much money one year was charged 110% in taxes. (Yes, that really happened.)

Drugs: Recreational drugs would be illeagal, though medicinal drugs would be okay so long as they are doctor prescribed and such prescriptions are monitored very closely.

Gay Rights: All people are created equal. It is only by our actions that we can change that. Since homosexuality is, in fact, genetic (and even if it wasn't, it is clearly not a choice), gays would have just the same rights as everyone else (including the right to marry). Like I said, all people are created equal. It's about time that we start treating them that way.

Abortion: Dependent on the unanimous decision of the couple. If the couple differs, whichever parent wants the child may keep it. If the biological father is unavailible for any reason during the pregnancy, then the mother chooses what to do with her child. If neither parents wants the child, adoption is also availible.

I happen to agree with this policy.


Child Laws: The age of consent is 16. The age for alchohol is 21, driving is 16 with full licence at 17 1/2, education should be paid through college and post-graduate school (Though entry to those institutions is granted on the basis of grades and exams; it isn't automatic.), though the minimum age to drop out (with parental consent) is 16, and military service may only occur after the age of 18. 16, however, should be the age at which the death penalty becomes available. Nonetheless, most crimes would be deffered to Juvenile Hall until the age of 18 (Murder, rape, etc. would be tried as an adult.). Social services available to minors (people under 18) would be quite extensive and include telephone/online counseling (such as in Canada) if the minor desires it.

Immigration: There should be a high immigration cap (much higher than that of the U.S.), though immigrants should be reccommended (and aided if they will it) to move to areas outside of the cities (where it is usually easier to start a new life and/or support a family). Residents (whether legal or otherwise) who are already living in this country may be granted citizenship (without counting against the immigration cap), though borders with third-world counries must be secured. All of the above becomes void if the potential immigrant has a criminal record (in which case they will be immediately deported). Refugees are welcome.

Civil rights are essential, for freedom is priceless.



Incidentally, my location on this political compass (which is quite excitingly almost exactly the same spot as the Dali Lama) is Economic Left/Right: -4.75 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15 .

Government: A Three-branch hierarchtical republic with a written (and binding) Constitution. -Note: By "hierarchtical republic," I mean a situation such as exists in the United States, where the counties opperate above (though with little authority over) the cities, and the states have the authority of a government itself (They are also republics.) but remain seperate, though underneath, the federal government (an even larger republic).

The term you want is federalism.

Influence: Locke, Mises, Austrian School of Economics

Economy: Free-market, based on Latin proprius rights. No government intervention other than upholding of proprius rights and punishing violations thereof.

Religion: Up to the people. As government is limited to the upholding of proprius, they should have no influence or effect.

Government: A republic, but most certainly not a democratic one- more likely a meritocratic republic based on natural law.

Tax money: As little as possible, and based solely on the payment for the defensive services government renders, such as a consumption tax. No other taxes of any kind, and most certainly not to direct behavior or go outside of the lines of defending proprius.

Drugs: Legal. However, if one behaves in a criminal fashion under the influence, they should still be punished.

Gay Rights: No government involvement. If homosexual couples want to make contracts between each other, let them. If churches wish to disassociate with homosexual couples, let them. No point in the government trying to formulate society as they wish.

Abortion: No. All effort should be made to make sure that both mother and child survive.

Child laws: Anyone can be a guardian of a child, so long as they respect the proprius of the child.

Immigration: Criminal check, physical. That's all.

Influence(s): Ayn Rand, David Boaz, Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Milton Friedman, John Stuart Mills, David Ricardo, John Locke, Montesqieu, Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire.

Economy: Almost entirely privately owned with the exception of the courts, police, firefighters, military, and roads. Corporations and Business would only be restricted in listing there ingerdients of the product and state whether or not its dangerous. Even if dangerous it would be up to the consumer. Workers would have right to strike, Owners of capital would have right to fire however,

Religion: A secular government that protects freedom of religon and freedom from religon.

Government: Represenative miniarchy with seperate judical, executive, and legislative branches that would be supported by a small tax Said tax would be based on percentage and the percent taxed would be equal amongst the populace. The government would be limited to protecting its citizens from force and fraud. Individual freedoms would stringently protected in constitution with some portions of it unamendable.

Foreign Policy- Spread free trade through diplomacy, Isolationist to rest of world unless in extreme need. Only uses military in extreme need. Army would be made up of well-paid volunteers. Draft would only occur if country was invaded.

Drugs: Legal, although drug countries must state the danger on the packaging.

Gay Rights: Gay Marriage legal.

Abortion: Woman would have right to choose whether she wants one or not.

Child Laws: Adoption for all couples legal. Children younger than 16 would be prohibited from working.

Immigration: All immigrants welcome who are not criminals.

Influences: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Hayek, Aristotle, Plato, Mises, J. S. Mill, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Wilhelm Roepke, Aldous Huxley, Milton Friedman, Locke, Minarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Constitutional Monarchy, England

Economy: Minimal government interference, with the exception of the regulation of monopolies and certain areas of economic activity - as far as possible, the free-market should compete in the provision of public goods, alongside the government. Direct cash aid/ voucher system & charity preferred over any other form of welfare. Certifying as opposed to licensing with regard to certain professions. Some specifics are abolition of all government subsidies to firms, limited copyrights, abolition of "corporation" charter.

Religion: Secular. All faiths allowed, none supported.

Government: A non-partisan, constitutionally limited Head of State (preferrably a Monarch), a bicameral Parliament (House of Lords, minus hereditary peerage/ House of Commons), and an executive. Laws should be general, and the legal system a Common Law system fixed on negative rights - the legislature's role should therefore be to revise the law on occasion and only when necessary. The basis of law will be "An it harm none, do what ye will" between consenting adults. The system is minarchist, ergo not subject to the whims of majorities. Strong separation between Courts & Executive. Anyone violating the constitutional terms of their office would be immediately removed. State must be strictly defensive and non-interventionist.

Tax Money: Should ideally be raised by a Consumption Tax (with rebates available for the poor). No specific priorities should be made as for how it is to be spent - it should cover government expenses, which already will be minimal.

Drugs:Your body, your right to put whatever you want in it.

Gay Rights: Equal treatment before the law, as with anyone else.

Abortion: Your body, your right to do whatever you want to it (same with euthanasia).

Immigration: Invitation-based - work, and you'll receive welfare - don't, and you can expect none. All costs should be burdened by the invitor (ie the employer) and the immigrant. Threats to the kingdom's security may be denied entry.

It should be noted I am ideologically anarcho-capitalist, but out of sheer pragmatism, I opt for minarchism.

The term you want is federalism.

Yes, but federalism doesn't have to be a three branch republic. It could work as a one branch democracy in which congressmen are randomly selected. While what I'm talking about is federalism, it's also a little more specific than that.

Yes, but federalism doesn't have to be a three branch republic. It could work as a one branch democracy in which congressmen are randomly selected. While what I'm talking about is federalism, it's also a little more specific than that.

Federalism with separation of powers, then.

(Where does random selection come into it?)

Influences: Winston Churchill, William Pitt, Thomas Jefferson, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Niall Ferguson, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill.

Economy: Minimal government intervention, free trade and liberal market (as opposed to the liberal theory of controlled market), certain sectors (emergency services, some healthcare, all governmental bodies) operated by the state.

Religion: Atheistic/secular government, no restriction of faith.

Government: Pretty much what Europa Maxima said, actually.

Taxation: Again, pretty much what EM said. Hm... I'm usually more articulate than this, but I don't want to type.

Drugs: 'soft' drugs such as Marijuana legal, 'hard' drugs such as methamphetamine, not so. This is based upon the theory that those partaking in 'hard' drugs are an increased danger to those around them beyond the point that it is tolerable, that the physical dependence upon 'hard' drugs and subsequent withdrawl can lead to certain dangerous behaviour (robbery, assault) that the user becomes a public threat.

Abortion: Sure.

Gay Rights: Full recognition under the law for homosexual couples/relationships/marriages.

Child Laws: Drinking age of sixteen for beer/wine in a restaurant, 18 for hard liquor/purchasing alcohol. Driving age of 18. Voting age, 18. Age of consent, 16. Employment age, 18 (children 14-17 may work a limited number of hours per week with written permission from a guardian).

Foreign Policy: Actively imperialist, militaristic. I'm serious, but please don't ask me to justify it here. I'm teh sleepy.

Immigration: Background check for criminal activity, physical screening to rule out/cure communicable diseases such as smallpox, SARS, Avian Flu. No discrimination on the basis of disability, race, age (if over 18/age of majority for country of origin if age of majority is lower).

no worker protection type laws

the fact that this is one of the first things that comes to mind when you want to describe your position explains why your position does not gain much support anywhere in the world.

So, what's your personal politics?


Influence(s): Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler

Economy: Free market though with a min. wage and prevention of monopolies.

Religion: Phased out of society all together

Government: Representive democracy w/ checks and balances. Basically what the United States government is supposed to be.

Tax Money: for law enforcement, defence, and higher education only

Drugs: Legal, especially weed

Gay Rights: Gays should have the same rights as everyone else

Abortion: legal in all cases

Child Laws: neither here nor there

Immigration: open borders, very few resrictions

Tax Money: for law enforcement, defence, and higher education only

Why higher education specifically?

Why higher education specifically?

Now that I think about it, I really dont have a good answer for that. I suppose taxes should go to lower education as well, though private school should be strongly encouraged.

Influence(s): Karl Marx, Winston Churchill, Ayn Rand, Gandhi, Hilter, Eric Clapton

Economy: Capitalist, but with some rather heavy government meddling. Lots of technology grants will be made available, as well rewards for reaching major technological advances (ie first commercial flight to space that lasts a week, T1 internet for the cost[plus inflation] that regular cable is now). Wellfare will be about what it is now (in Canada), but increased funding to pensions and disability services agencies.

Religion: Agnostic. Using religion X to support the fact that people Y are inferior will be considered a hate crime against both the people and the religion.

Government: Unless I am made Emporer, a democracy modelled after Germany's. People will get a Perportional vote and a First-Past-the-Post vote.

Tax Money: Education, Health Care, and Commerce will be the top concerns of the government. The Armed Forces will recieve more funding. The Navy will get enough to effectively patrol the northern waters of Canada and get a battleship:p. The Air Force will recieve much of the increased military funding.

Drugs: The Provincial Liquor Stores will henceforth be known as The Provincial Liquor and Hemp Store. It will be one of the few things with a sales tax, so help your country by getting totally ripped.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage will be recognized by the government as just a marriage. Actually, the government will define marriage as 'a group of people legally joined by the government for a tax break'. Now, finding a minister how will wed you and the transvestite to the three Swedish midgets is frankly not the governments problem.

Abortion: The mother can ultimately decides. The father can opt for 'aborted to me' status, but he gives up all rights to see the child. Said status will have to be filled early. As for the procedure itself, it will only follow the protocols used for any other operation.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged. Adopting from a third nation country will be subsidised by the government. Neither will cost the wannabe parents anything.

Immigration: Immigrating to Canada will be about as difficult as it is now. The numbers will be raised higher. The active importation of skilled workers from countrios like Mexico shall be continued.

I would describe myself as a left-wing Eurocommunist.

Economy:
State-run or cooperative large enterprise. No more stock market. Medium-sized and small enterprises should be either private or coop-run.

Education:
Totally state-run, non-religious, totally free, from kindergarten up to university, with possibility to go to private schools only when you're out of state-school times (you want to go to religious school? ok, but only after 4.30pm, when you're done with state school).
Also schooling would be compulsory until age 16 at the very least.

Elections and state powers:
Parliamentary republic, two branches, both expressing confidence vote for the government. Proportional voting on national lists (with one preference) for the lower chamber, majoritarian voting on local candidates for the upper chamber. Strong separation of powers between parliament, government and judiciary power. Military under control of government. Secret service under shared control of government and parliament. Head of state a different office than head of government.

Healthcare:
Free for everybody. State-run hospitals paid by taxes. Private clinics allowed.
Free, state-run ambulance service. Right to abortion, right to die.

Military:
6 months service, compulsory for everyone. Training in weapons, military operations, and emergency services (for natural disasters etc). Armed forces for national defence only.

Natural resources:
Land owned by state. Any natural resource is owned by the state. Private can be given permit to exploit it for a limited amount of time.

Housing:
Everybody's right to have an house.

Work:
Max 40 hours per week. Executives need confidence vote of the workers.

Taxes:
Progressive income tax.

Religion, sex:
The state keeps away from such matters.

Jailing:
Violent criminals jailed until successful end of rehabilitation process.

i pretty much cover this in my party manifesto (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499585)

or the UDCP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861179#post8861179)



basically one form of socialism or another with some relatively odd ideas (direct democracy; banning inheritance; etc)

Influences: Thatcher, Churchill, Machiavelli

Economy: As liberated as possible, with only monopolies and severe misconduct warranting state intervention.

Religion: Freedom, but not intractably so. The interests of the state, whatever they are outlined to be, take precedent.

Government: Either British parliamentary democracy, or a proto-fascist benevolent dictatorship.

Taxation: Privatisation of public services, with the omission of the police, militray and fire service. in order to effect a low level of flat taxation.

Drugs: Provided medical care is privately funded, regulated legalisaton is economically and ideologically compelling.

Gay Rights: Full rights.

Abortion: Naturally.

Immigration: Not so much a closed door as curtain walls, moats, barbed wire and machine guns. Were people obliged to work, through the removal of unnecessary welfare benefits, the economic justification for immigration would be a fallacy, whilst I maintain that culturally extre-European immigration has been calamitious.

I like how a lot of people share influences but have pretty wildly ranging ideas when compared to each other...

For example, people who list Plato or Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson...

Just interesting to me, that's all.

Another one of these threads. I just love them :D

Influences: Many.

Economy: Socialist in outlook, with government running directly services like water, electricity, roads, railways, canals, communication infrastructure, and natural resources like oil and gas.

Other large and influential enterprises like supermarkets and corporations with an annual turnover of £50m operate on democratic lines, with decision-making power extended beyond investors to a range of stakeholders including employees and consumers. (From the LRC "Policy for a real Labour government)

Religion: As the Blessed Chris says "Freedom, but not intractably so. The interests of the state, whatever they are outlined to be, take precedent."

Government: Assuming I'm runing the UK I'd go for a system similar (but not identical to) to South Africa: a Parliamentary federal republic, with the President replacing the Monarch and Prime Minister. Elections to take place by the Single Transferable Vote and Direct Democracy ensured.

Possibility of nonpartisan democracy to be investigated.

Taxation: Progressive through a Negative Income Tax, and a Land Value Tax. NIT provides the most basic welfare needs.

Healthcare: State run healthcare system, levy on private insurance helps fund improvements to it.

Military: Self-defense forces only.

Drugs: Some legalised with research and safely standards.

Gay rights/abortion: Full rights.

Migration: Best to solve the causes of migration, primarily poverty abroad, than try and cope with its effects, although refugees fleeing from persecution should not be shunned, and international agreement found to ensure that as many countries as possible take good care of refugees.

Influences: Ronald Reagan

Economy: Mostly free market with small social saftey nets. A welfare system to see that you do not go hungry or lose your home if you lose your job, but only for 4 month.

Religion: No state religion. All religions allowed, all religions taxed, and all religions equal.

Government: Like the one the United States has now with minor changes, such as removing the party system and a few minor changes.


Taxation: Flat income tax and no death tax. As well a national sales tax.

Healthcare: Private health care only.

Military: Very strong military, around 20% of the government budget. No draft unless in the cases of extremly dire circumstances(rebellion, invasion, or total war)

Drugs: All legal in side a private home or building. If you caught under the influence in public its a long prison sentence.

Gay rights/abortion: Full rights. What goes on between consenting adults is between them.

Migration: Welcomed if it is done legally. Very strict penalties if doe illegally.

Influences: Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Jello Biafra, Noam Chomsky, anarcho-communism, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism, mutualism, the I.W.W. Constitution

Economy: Socially-owned (on the commune level) worker self-managed "companies" held accountable to consumers by a combination of market mechanisms and democratic accountability

or:

highly decentralized village-based anarcho-communism based on completely voluntary labor, sharing of the fruits of production, and the utter abolition of economic compulsion and inequality.

I prefer the second, but I'm not sure if we can get there from here.

Religion: Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Government: Decisions made through direct democracy on the commune level by voluntarily associating individuals. Universal suffrage, and some means of including children and teenagers in the process.

Tax Money: No taxes, as social ownership of the means of production will be used to derive funds for collective endeavours.

Drugs: Legal, but with treatment for addicts who seek it.

Gay Rights: Full and complete equality.

Abortion: Up to the mother.

Child Laws: It is legitimate to restrain them when they are in danger of directly harming others or themselves. Otherwise, they should be given complete freedom.

Immigration: No one is illegal. Open borders.Ditto

Two people just listed Hitler as their influences... :eek:

My politics, are something of a cross between psychosis and pure evil.

That's all.

Ditto

Make that a third.

Influence(s): Darwin I guess, Micheal Collins, a wee tiny bit of Hitler the non-killing people ones.

Economy: Mostly capitalist/free market, but natural resources and health system should be state controlled. Education half and half.

Religion: As long as it doesnt interfere with the laws.

Government: President elected for changing of consitution, miltary and deciplining TD'S. TD'S (mp's in england or what ever they are called in other countries) to be incharge legislation and running of state

Tax Money: main priority health system, then education, law and entreprenuership.

Drugs: Legal, but taxed and only in certain zones.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage is not recognised as equal to Heterosexual marriages. But should be allowed to be next of kin.

Abortion: Nope.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged. Child abuse is illegal with stric punishment.

Immigration: Immigration is open to all citizens from all nations, as long as the government finds them a good asset(accept ones from negative cultures or have aids) to the nation and are able to fit them into the nation.

hasnt been updated since i first started it but will when i have time. (www.correctism.cjb.net)

Two people just listed Hitler as their influences... :eek:

technically everyone is influenced by hitler, wether you hate him or not.

Economy: Privatized with the exception of law enforcement, military, government administration, and limited educational establishments.

Religion: Heavily taxed with the Government being secular by nature. Various philosophies would not be considered religious, such as Satanism or Buddhism.

Government: Democractic to an extent, voting available only to those with full mental faculties. Any mental illness within the past five years makes one ineligeble to vote.

Tax Money: Subsidies for healthcare, education, public transport, registered families (2 adults, 1 child (either personal or adopted)), and provision of police force, military, and administration.

Drugs: Anything causing mental disfunction or inducing addiction, with the exception of alcoholic beverages, is outlawed.

Gay Rights: Equal to heterosexuals.

Abortion: Legal. Choice is down to the woman solely. Medical practioners must perform abortions if requested, regardless of religious or moral obligations. Failure to act in their expected role will result in prosecution.

Child Laws: Basic physical punishment, that being smacking the buttocks or hand, is allowed by natural or adoptive parents, however, causing physical or mental harm is illegal. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to work to prevent child labour.

Immigration: Qualifications or certified skills are a requirement, as is fluent English (or national language) and a basic knowledge of law, society and history. Social integration is encouraged with failure to do so resulting in a fine or extradition.

Environment: Impromper waste disposal, those being harmful to the environment, outlawed. Subsidies to public transport firms to encourage low prices and high quality services, thus encouraging usage of such facilities.

Elderly and Retirement: Government pensions that increase in accordance with inflation. Retirement age of 60 for men, 62 for women. Free passage on public transport and discounted medical treatment.

I'm a Pragmatic Lbertarian. I believe in freedom for all and a tiny Government, but that we need massive education reforms first, to prevent stupid people messing it up for the smart ones.

Now that I think about it, I really dont have a good answer for that. I suppose taxes should go to lower education as well, though private school should be strongly encouraged.
Well, lower education is what ultimately equips you with the necessary tools to later survive in society - higher education (as in university) has never really been that way - even today, many corporations prefer you have a good high school diploma and be willing to undergo their training, except where specialization is necessary (e.g. Law). I agree with what you say now, but I'd rather focus government aid in lower education than in higher education where there is less of a disadvantage with regard to institutions going fully private (for instance, a university receives huge endowments for the research it carries out etc., plus tuition from richer patrons - a school cannot match this kind of funding, and therefore while it can offer scholarships to the needy, a private college or university is all the better placed to do so).

Two people just listed Hitler as their influences... :eek:
I suppose they like some of his ideas on economics? Schacht certainly didn't though...

The father can opt for 'aborted to me' status, but he gives up all rights to see the child.
Imagine the psychological trauma that would cause the child. :D "You're dead to me." Assuming of course the mother doesn't abort it...

Influence(s): I don't even know

Economy: Free market capitalism :D

Religion: is none of the government's business, we should all be free to worship as we choose, the government should not make laws that stop the free exercise of religion.

Government: Republic

Tax Money: I support the fair tax, and money should be spent on keeping the country running smoothly (infrastructure mostly)


The rest of the stuff? I don't know........The governement should be there to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves, I don't see the point in having them in every single waking moment of your life.

Religion: is none of the government's business, we should all be free to worship as we choose, the government should not make laws that stop the free exercise of religion.


Of course, these two concepts are often mutually exclusive in practise.

Of course, these two concepts are often mutually exclusive in practise.

yeah, I know, I am having trouble with the line.....you know.

yeah, I know, I am having trouble with the line.....you know.

Heh... everyone is having trouble with that line, one way or another. :)

Influence(s): Far too many things to list.

Economy: Participatory economics. Society & economy exists to make individuals prosper. Greed-based economies either benefits the few, or become wholly deficient through massive regulations imposed by the few.

Religion: Ideally none. But since the gullible aren't going anywhere: freedom from & of religion.

Government: Loosely united anarchic communes.

Tax Money: Would be a superflous concept.

Drugs: Concerns individuals, not societies.

Gay Rights: Sexual preferrences concerns individuals, not societies.

Abortion: Concerns individuals, not societies.

Child Laws: Underage children would be the responsibility of the guardians. If the guardians aren't up to the task, then the children can appeal to the community. Teachers & the like will of course have to keep an eye out for child abuse. I'd consider children adults at the age of 16.

Immigration: Why shouldn't people be free to move around?

yeah, I know, I am having trouble with the line.....you know.

You know, religion is holding the world back. Best to just get rid of it, you know. :)

Government: Democractic to an extent, voting available only to those with full mental faculties. Any mental illness within the past five years makes one ineligeble to vote.You do realise that far from all mental illnesses impact people's ability to participate in a democracy, right?

You know, religion is holding the world back. Best to just get rid of it, you know. :)

I don't think you can objectively prove that, and I seem to be doing just fine with my religion, so I don't think I will be giving it up based on your claim.

Not sure if there's a site I should be going to for this stuff to get it...but I'll do my best.

Meh...influences: FDR, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich.

Economy: Some industries would be run by the state with a watchdog group built in. That same watchdog group would monitor private industry as well. No employee would be allowed to earn more than 100 times what the lowest-paid worker earns (150 times the lowest part-timer's per-hour wage times 2,000, if there are part-timers.) However, the free market would be allowed and encouraged to innovate, given bonuses for solving problems, and penalized severely for Enron-esque ethics violations.

Religion: A complete separation of church and state. No religious figure would be allowed to hold public office...not while they hold their religious title, anyway. Churches would have to pay taxes just like the rest of us.

Government: Voting allowed when one turns 16 and passes a free, government-sponsored class. All schools are required to teach the things that would enable a person to pass the class. As for the government itself, a PR-selected parliament with an open list would be in order, a Supreme Court would be selected by a meritocracy, and the executive would consist of several members. A federal system is fine, but states' rights would never supersede people's rights.

Tax money: Education would be federally funded and some tough federal standards would be in order; other than that, states and districts can do whatever works best. Those who fail to meet federal standards don't lose funding; they lose their jobs.

Drugs: I would say everything's OK with the exception of the really hard things like crack and meth. Things like morphine, marijuana, heroin, and tobacco would be kept under strict FDA regulation. That means that no additives can go into cigarettes. Those things kill enough people. Oh yeah, and I have no problem taxing them outrageously.

Gay Rights: Equal to heterosexuals; however, I wouldn't give them the right to marry or have civil unions. That said, I wouldn't give heterosexuals that right either. People can give next-of-kin rights, hospital visitation rights, and what-not to whomever they please...within reason, anyway. They can't name their 4-year-old children the executor of their wills, but they can leave trust funds to their teenagers and let their college-age kids visit them in the hospital.

Abortion: It's horribly impractical to ban it. That said, a massive overhaul of the sex education system should help out in reducing the number of abortions, and men who are proven to be responsible and want to be fathers can veto abortions contingent on taking care of the child and becoming the primary caregiver. Women who override a responsible father in this case to get an abortion may face legal action; conversely, men who veto an abortion and then don't take care of their kids get serious legal action.

Child rights: Parents don't have the right to abuse their kids, either sexually or with excessive force, nor do they have the right to force them to do any work beyond household chores until the child is age...I don't know, 13. Beyond that, parents cannot force their children to work and then confiscate their pay; that would be considered abuse and grounds for a lawsuit.

Immigration: All they have to do is get their papers and become legal citizens. Those who become immigrants are barred from any welfare or unemployment benefits until at least one member of their family has been employed for one year continuously with no gaps larger than 30 days. Beyond that, they would be entitled to the same job programs, education opportunities, and benefits that the rest of us really ought to be able to get. Basically, they shouldn't be allowed to work the system, but neither should anyone else. Also, speaking the language of the majority would not be a requirement, but those who choose not to do so should not be catered to in any special way (i.e. a Mexican immigrant who chooses not to learn English should either move to a town where most people speak Spanish or shut the hell up about it.)

Environment: Rules would be strict about pollution, waste disposal, etc. and recycling would be encouraged. Cleaner fuels would be encouraged but at a reasonable pace.

Retirement: Social Security would be expanded to the point where all shortages are filled by making people pay 6.2% on every dollar they earn, not just up to $90,000 or so. Retirement age would be 68 or the point of total disability, whichever comes first; military veterans would receive money every year from the government in proportion to how long they spent in a combat zone and how disabled they are (i.e. a Marine who got his legs blown off in Iraq would get, say, $20,000 a year increasing by 3.5% or whatever inflation is every year, whereas a career Air Force person who never saw combat and never lost so much as a fingernail might just receive $1,000 flat per year. All guesses at this point.) In all jobs, those who are 50 years of age or older would be moved from physically demanding jobs such as construction or assembly line work to more desk work unless they specifically request to stay in their physical jobs; those who stay would earn 15% more as an age bonus and would be required to receive regular raises as well. As for those on retirement, pensions would be in proportion to the length of service and would be, say, 2.5% of the retiree's last annual salary for every year of service up to 20 years, plus any bonuses they choose to throw in for extra longevity.

Nope, still crazy-evil on my part.

I don't think you can objectively prove that, and I seem to be doing just fine with my religion, so I don't think I will be giving it up based on your claim.

I might argue that you have faith, not religion... :)

I don't think you can objectively prove that, and I seem to be doing just fine with my religion, so I don't think I will be giving it up based on your claim.

Given that many of the human conflicts fought in the past up to the present day was because of religion I think it is obvious that religion is more trouble then it is worth. It also allows bigotry because supposively God disapproves. Best to get rid of it entirely and then the prime reason for the violence humans commit against each other will disappear.

I might argue that you have faith, not religion... :)
very true. ;)
Given that many of the human conflicts fought in the past up to the present day was because of religion I think it is obvious that religion is more trouble then it is worth. It also allows bigotry because supposively God disapproves. Best to get rid of it entirely and then the prime reason for the violence humans commit against each other will disappear.

all conflict is caused by selfishness.

Given that many of the human conflicts fought in the past up to the present day was because of religion I think it is obvious that religion is more trouble then it is worth. It also allows bigotry because supposively God disapproves. Best to get rid of it entirely and then the prime reason for the violence humans commit against each other will disappear.

Actually ideological belief is more important than religion as a cause of conflict. Religion fits under the general umbrella of ideological belief. After all, over a hundred million people died in the last century because of ideological beliefs. Ideological beliefs create in-group out-group identities, and those are the primary cause of conflict.

And, of course, the only way to get rid of ideological beliefs is to stop people from having opinions.

Although, a sizable number of the conflicts throughout history are instead borne of the desires for kings and dictators to embrace personal, political and economic aggrandizement.

Personal Politics:

"An' it harm none, do as thou wilt."

very true. ;)


I have a lot of problems with religion.

Surprisingly, however... none with faith.

Influences: Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein (early work)

Economy: Private property + voluntary exchange. Trade creates wealth, and the ability to accumulate wealth creates the incentive to produce and innovate. Theft and Fraud will be strongly discouraged through deterrents.

Government: Constitutional Dictatorship. Specifically, the constitution should be the source of the law, and it should not be easily amendable. By eliminating the political process, we eliminate the power of special interest groups and lobbyinsts, plus remove the incentive for bribery and corruption. Democracy is antithetical to personal freedom (that's my only real Objectivist influence).

The role of government is to protect the people from each other. It is the role of the immutable constitution to protect the people from the government. It is not anyone's role to protect people from themselves.

Religion:It is not the role of government to protect people from themselves. The government shall not regulate religion, nor grant it special privledges (like tax exemption).

Tax Money: Deficit financing should only be permitted in times of national emergency - surpluses must be used to pay off debts and beyond that be returned to the taxpayers. I'd be happy with a flat income tax or a broad sales tax as the source of that revenue.

Drugs: It is not the role of government to protect people from themselves. The government shall not regulate recreational drug use.

Gay Rights: It is not the role of the government to protect people from themselves. Morality is irrelevant.

Abortion: What constitutes a person shall be precisely defined, and not limited by age, gender, or species. I cannot imagine a foetus satisfying the criteria, and thus it would be considered property.

Child Laws: Until they are persons, children are the responsibility of their parents. Parents shall be held responsible for the behaviour of their children, and shall be subject to deterrent punishments should their children violate the law.

Immigration: In the absence of a social safety net and democracy, I see no reason to limit immigration. As long as either the social safety net or democracy persists, I want very strict controls on immigration.

I have a lot of problems with religion.

Surprisingly, however... none with faith.

I also have a lot of problems with "religious" people, mostly because I think they totally miss the point and end up looking like idiots or worse acting like idiots and hurting people.

I have a lot of problems with religion.

Surprisingly, however... none with faith.
I object to faith, not religion.

all conflict is caused by selfishness.

That is true but they cloak themselves in the righteousness of their war by saying "God is with them" or that "God wants us to do this". Then of course the ones who honestly believes their religion wants them to act the way that they do. People have a long history of killing in the name of Jesus.

Actually ideological belief is more important than religion as a cause of conflict. Religion fits under the general umbrella of ideological belief. After all, over a hundred million people died in the last century because of ideological beliefs. Ideological beliefs create in-group out-group identities, and those are the primary cause of conflict.


Which is why I said religion doesn't cover all human conflicts. But you look at the situation in the Middle East now and you can imagine how things might be if relgion was not a factor. Things wouldn't be perfect but it would certainly be better.

I object to faith, not religion.

As a personal choice for ME? Yes - 'faith' and I are not on speaking terms.

But - as a generality? The 'faith' of others has surprisingly little harm in it, for me. Their 'religion' on the other hand...

That is true but they cloak themselves in the righteousness of their war by saying "God is with them" or that "God wants us to do this". Then of course the ones who honestly believes their religion wants them to act the way that they do. People have a long history of killing in the name of Jesus.
They cloak themselves in whatever they are deluded enough to place as important.

People have a long history of killing over sex, money, politics, and plain psychosis too.

They cloak themselves in whatever they are deluded enough to place as important.

People have a long history of killing over sex, money, politics, and plain psychosis too.

National or Ideological Universalism did take much of the role of religion in much of the twentieth century as well.

Influence(s): Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Robert A. Heinlein, Aldous Huxley, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the People of the United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, Free French, Poland, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, The Netherlands, and Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy), the residents and staff of Casa/Hogar Estado 29 near Ensenada, Mexico (http://www.friendsoftheorphanages.org/estado29.html) (I helped build/install the basketball court in the pictures :D ).

Economy:


* For the abandonment of all state ownership and control of any commercial, industrial, or other business enterprise.
* For the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that derives its existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support, for the purpose of serving to further centralize power, remove responsibility for individual or group actions, or create scarcity and systems of control, overly liable to abuse, where none need exist.
* For the continued existence and defense of individual private property rights in physical/tangible goods and land; such rights include the ability of individuals to voluntarily dispose of their property as they see fit, including entering into voluntary collective, cooperative, or other group based agreements which do not derive their existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support.
* For replacement of state ownership and the corporation with employee owned and controlled entities taking any number of possible shapes, for profit or not for profit; mutuals, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.
* For an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.



Government:


While we value the liberty and sovereignty of the individual as paramount, we also value order and peace. Because relationships between individuals are inevitable, conflict is also inevitable, and this conflict stands as a direct threat to the continuance of peace and order. Government is thus a necessity, however, it is a tool for those who desire peace and order, and it is a slave to those who desire peace and order. To the extent that government does exist, it should be as close to the people as possible; as such The Autonomist Party advocates the establishment and active practice of radical decentralization in all areas of governance. Government, because it is a slave to the People, should be accountable to the People in all aspects; as such The Autonomist Party advocates the establishment and active practice of direct democracy. That government which requires the institution of representatives moves the necessary control of power away from the People, and places it into the hands of rulers who become increasingly unaccountable the higher they go. Government ceases to become a slave, and instead becomes Master. Such a situation cannot be allowed to occur or persist.



Taxes:


* For the agencies of tax collection to be constructed and to operate as close to the People as possible; this means the application of decentralization and democratic control as with any other government agency, in order to maximize accountability, minimize waste, and to keep collected and spent funds as close to those from whom it was collected.
* For requiring that any and all efforts to raise tax rates, to implement a new tax, or to change the nature of an existing tax, must be approved by referendum, a direct vote of all the People who will be affected by such new policy.
* For exploration, discussion, and education regarding implementation of alternative methods of tax collection, including sales taxes, flat taxes, negative income taxes, user fees, etc.
* For continued exploration and development of new ways to enhance the role of voluntary, community, and cooperative organizations and institutions, as described under sections "The Nature of Economics" and "The Nature of Social Welfare," with the aim of making provision of public services to the People more efficient, less costly, and ultimately less dependent on taxation in the first place.



Drugs: Complete decriminalization and relegalization. Severe punishment of anyone who commits violent crimes or other violations (DUI, etc.) in the course of drug use.

Gay Rights: There is no need for such a concept. Human rights belong to all humans, regardless of irrevelant issues like sexual orientation. Marriage is not a legitimate state function, either.

Abortion: Only in the event of medical necessity/emergency.

Immigration: National borders not only divide the species needlessly, but they also consititute a severe restriction on the market process, free association, and the ability of the desperately poor to provide for themselves and their dependents.

They cloak themselves in whatever they are deluded enough to place as important.

People have a long history of killing over sex, money, politics, and plain psychosis too.

Hardly the state sponsored killing however. You will always have your individual criminals and crazies and some countries will start wars that don't have anything to do with religion. However with a good number of wars you just have to take a quick look and see relgion was at the root of it. There really isn't any way around it. Everything from the Crusades, to the Muslim invasions, the Thirty Years War, the conflict in the Middle East now, etc., etc. And if it isn't religion specifically then the leader will attach God to their war to add legitamacy.

Hardly the state sponsored killing however. You will always have your individual criminals and crazies and some countries will start wars that don't have anything to do with religion. However with a good number of wars you just have to take a quick look and see relgion was at the root of it. There really isn't any way around it. Everything from the Crusades, to the Muslim invasions, the Thirty Years War, the conflict in the Middle East now, etc., etc. And if it isn't religion specifically then the leader will attach God to their war to add legitamacy.

religion isn't the root of war though, it's an excuse for it, not the root of the cause.

it's like I used to tell people in marriage counseling, "you aren't fighting about money, you think you are because it's the topic of all your fights but that's not the root of your problem"

it's the same concept.

As a personal choice for ME? Yes - 'faith' and I are not on speaking terms.

But - as a generality? The 'faith' of others has surprisingly little harm in it, for me. Their 'religion' on the other hand...
The faith of others is evidence of their willingness to hold baseless opinions. To me, this makes them entirely unpredictable.

religion isn't the root of war though, it's an excuse for it, not the root of the cause.

it's like I used to tell people in marriage counseling, "you aren't fighting about money, you think you are because it's the topic of all your fights but that's not the root of your problem"

it's the same concept.

I wonder though what excuses could have been made if people were not caught up being told to kill because it is God's will. The Crusades would never have happened because the "Holy Land" would never have existed. The Muslim invasions, same thing, no Islam to spread. Catholic/Protestant split and the violence from it, witch burnings, same. The suffering the Jews have faced over the millenia? Same. These things occured at least in part because their faith told them that it was neccessary. Because if you were not of their faith then you had to be converted or killed. Sure, you can say that we would have found some other reason to kill but it would not be because of someones opinion of what God wants.

The faith of others is evidence of their willingness to hold baseless opinions. To me, this makes them entirely unpredictable.

This makes no sense, I'm afraid.

Faith IS the base of the opinions. If you understand the faith, then you have a betetr chance of understanding the opinions.

To me, this makes 'them' entirely predictable.

I wonder though what excuses could have been made if people were not caught up being told to kill because it is God's will. The Crusades would never have happened because the "Holy Land" would never have existed. The Muslim invasions, same thing, no Islam to spread. Catholic/Protestant split and the violence from it, witch burnings, same. The suffering the Jews have faced over the millenia? Same. These things occured at least in part because their faith told them that it was neccessary. Because if you were not of their faith then you had to be converted or killed. Sure, you can say that we would have found some other reason to kill but it would not be because of someones opinion of what God wants.

The suffering the Jews have suffered over the millenia? Some might point to the Hebrew scripture, and sugegst that, just maybe, Jews haven't an entirely spotless past...

The point you are missing, is that Crusades were fought IN THE NAME OF God, Islam spreads IN THE NAME OF God, Catholics and Protestants war IN THE NAME OF God...

But the people that start the fighting WANT to fight anyway - for whatever reason - and religion is one of a number of excuses. Could have been politics. Could have been skin tone.

Some people will always be of a faith, but peaceful. SOme will always be of a faith, but warlike.

For those who are peaceful, their faith is a tool of their peace. For those who are warlike, their faith becomes a weapon of war.

Well, obviously since we are on this site, many of us like to prescribe to a particular ideology's or political party/group's name, but honestly, do you agree, word-for-word, with the beleifs of the entire political theory? Probably not. I'm sure you might dissent slightly from some of the beleifs of your particular version of what the world requires politically.

So, what's your personal politics?


These are my beliefs, though I am usually open to compromise on many issues:

Influence(s): Jesus, Socrates, John Locke, Machiavelli (The Discourses), Thomas Paine, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Ronald Reagan, My brother.

Economy: I am a Capitalist. I support government intervention only when it is in the best interest of the worker, the consumer or the general economy (like the Chrysler Bail out). A low Tax rate and Deep Tax cuts are what work, not tax hikes and huge government programs. I support NAFTA as well as CAFTA as long as the Free Trade is also Fair Trade. I do not believe in income redistribution and believe that when taxes are cut, all should be included because even when the wealthy pay less taxes there is a trickle down effect which eventually benefits everyone else. I do not support Laissez-Faire policies but I certainly am against Socialism (which I used to support back in high school). I would say I am a fiscal moderate but a hawk on tax cuts.

Religion: In the 1950s the words "Under God" were put into our pledge of allegiance to differentiate our American society of faith from the Atheist Communist society of the Soviets. We are a nation under a higher power. We are not a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. nation but the first U.S. citizens to over 90% of present day Americans not only believe in God but support using "Under God" in the pledge and "In God we Trust" on our currency and national seals.

Our rights are given to us by a power beyond government and beyond ourselves and it is governments job to preserve and protect these rights. Government does not control these rights and it does not grant these rights; it is the tool of our rights.

I value the freedom of religous expression as well as the separation of church and state. The state should have no influence over the church/temple/mosque and the church should have no influence over the state. Those who wish to should be able to practice and express their faith unabashed in public and in public areas/buildings so long as they are not discriminating against others. A secular government is not the same as a Godless government. Political candidates should be able to publicly express their faith without criticism.

Government: Government's main concerns should be the protection of its citizens (Law & Order, military) and the preservation of our rights. I support a Democratic system of government where voting is held frequently and voting rights are sacrosanct. Politicians must be accountable to the people but at the same time the people who are apathetic about government and do not take the initiative to get out and vote will not be heard. It is their own fault then if "career politicians" take advantage of them. I support term limits for house members and senators. i support the separation of powers among the different branches of government. I also like how it is hard to get anything done in the American system of government. This was intentional. The less work the government does, the better, as far as I am concerned (though sometimes partisan bickering delays solutions to really important issues).

Government should represent integrity and has a responsibility to preserve our nations moral values. The moral fabric of the country is just as important as the economic and social in order to keep our society from falling apart. I am a strong believer in States Rights however and realize that different regions of the country have different values than others.

Tax Money: Cut taxes and watch tax revenues increase and the economy boom. I support low tax rates. As far as to what these taxes should fund, it should mostly go to National Security, Foreign and Domestic. I believe Education should be more of a local matter but Federal guidelines and some funding are not an issue with me.

Environmental protection is important but the burden should be on businesses to regulate themselves and if they violate any regulations there will be serious consequences. Setting aside Federal land for conservation purposes is a good idea in many cases but the States should have a say when the Federal governments comes into their backyard and essentially quarantines their own land from them. Huge chunks of western, midwestern states and Alaska are off limits to many of the locals who had no say in the matter at all (Alaskans cherish their land wild life refuge but they should be able to drill for oil in select areas if they want).

Social Welfare Programs should serve as a short term safety net to catch those who may slip through the cracks but never as a "great society" baby sitter where self reliance suffers and government dependance grows. Able collectors must work and go through job training programs. The welfare reform introduced by Newt Gingrich and signed into law by Bill Clinton is an excellent step in the right direction. I also believe existing Federal and State welfare programs should be consolidated into one program and run at the local level by local officials and local communities.

I support Social Security for the disabled and the Elderly but the system needs reform. Partial privatization should be an option and i am frustrated beyond all hell that this issue has not been addressed. Republicans are accused of using scare tactics when it comes to terrorism, well the Democrats have been using the same scare tactics when it comes to social security since the 1990s. I personally am not stupid enough to actually think SS will beyond by the time I need it so I will make my own private investments but many people are going to be screwed in the very near future.

There's alot more I could mention but I believe the government spends too much and that the pork needs to be cut and the bureaucracies need a good trimming down.

Oh and I support a Flat tax rate for all.

Drugs: Drugs should not be legal. Legalizing them will not solve the problems they cause but make them worse and those who believe otherwise are, in my opinion, living in a world driven by emotion and fantasy. Drugs have a negative effect on the Health, Productivity and Civil well being of our society. Even Marijuana which many consider to be a "light" drug or not even a drug at all has been proven to cause serious pulmonary problems, decrease EEG coherence (basically making you dumber) and retards a persons abilities in creativity, coherence, intelligence, learning ability and efficiency/productivity. Bad for Health, Bad for Business and Bad for society.

Legalizing drugs will also not rid this country of crime. Legal drugs will further feed the addicts habit and many crimes are committed under the influence of some kind of narcotic. And there will always be a black market with even the slightest bit of regulation. Cough Medicine is legal, yet the amounts you can buy are being controlled in pharmacies because of the ingredients in some. Black market merchants buy and sell them in bulk. this is cough medicine!

Addicts should be treated as patients and non-violent offenders in the beginning instead of as criminals. Rehabilitation over incarceration, unless they can't clean up their act.

Gay Rights: I see homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and a behavior. it is not the same as being born black or a minority. However, gay people should be protected by anti-discrimination laws. I do not support calling gay marriage, "marriage" however and do not believe marriage is a "right". I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable for people to have some reservations about homosexuality, it does not mean they are bad people. You can not force acceptance of certain behaviors no matter how much you scream or try to intimidate and just because someone does not accept homosecuality does not mean they wish to harm homosexuals. Any one who does should and will be punished under the law. I support Civil Unions and gay spousal privileges. I do not support the teaching of homosexuality in our schools but do support the general message of tolerance of those who are different than you.

Abortion: I personally am pro-life. Though I feel the majority of people, including pro-choicers, are pro-life and are uneasy about the procedure of abortion. Many women are put in a tough position however and need to make what most likely will be (and should be seen as) the toughest decision of their lives. They need emotional support for whichever decision they make. It sickens me that there a few (and they are few) people and organizations out there who actually see no problem with abortion and feel it is no different than running any other errand of the day, such as buying groceries or getting your nails done. dehumanizing the fetus in an attempt to clear your conscience and make abortion seem more acceptable does not make it right. I disagree that anyone who is against abortion (many of which are women including Deborah Roe herself) is automatically anti-women's rights.

I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare in the first trimester. After that, i grow uneasy. I feel partial birth abortions should be outlawed unless the life of the mother is directly threatened. I do not support the Roe VS Wade decision. From a constitutional point of view, that decision was nothing more than judicial activism and was based off a case, Griswold VS CT, which literally just made up rights in the Constitution. Unelected judges should not be legislating from the bench and "finding" seemingly hidden rights in the Constitution to make law, especially when it comes to such a polarizing issue. First off, it should be a state issue. Second, if the Feds choose to step in, then they are within their right. This was not something to be decided by the courts though. There was no Constitutional basis for their decision.

So basically I am pro-life personally but I do not necessarily believe abortion should be outright illegal. it should not be shrugged off as just another medical procedure either, though. I may not want to see abortion made illegal but I do think the Roe V Wade decision is bunk.

I support Stem Cell Research. However, I like how the private investors and the states seem to be setting up their own programs to get around the Federal restrictions. Maybe it's a good thing the Federal government is not involved with this important research? Too much red tape would only delay the breakthroughs. The extra funding would be nice though.

Child Laws: adoption should be a state issue when it comes to whether homosexual or heterosexual couples can adopt. i personally am uneasy about homosexuals adopting a child because it will confuse them and could result in experimentation and promiscuity at a later age. i have read some studies on this. children should not be used in social experiments.

I feel the parents should always have more say and power over their childs lives than government unless ofcourse they are being abused.

Immigration: I am receptive to legal immigration of all ethnic groups. I frown upon illegal immigration and the current state of our borders. The borders must be protected and their flow must be under control. America is seen as a land of opportunity for many people all over the world and the gates should be open to those who follow the rules and laws we have set in place and thus earn their place here. America needs immigrants for their conributions to the economy and culture of the country. The borders must be sealed and controlled to prevent drugs, crime and disease from crossing, Comprehensive immigration reform must be passed, a workers program should be implemented, economic aid and foreign investment should be given to countries who can not support their own and a path to citizenship should be available to some of the illegal immigrants here today.

Also, Mexico should not receive all the attention when it comes to immigration. Mexico is not a 3rd world country and are actually quite wealthy with a booming tourism industry and a land rich in natural resources. The Mexican government is corrupt and literally dumps their sick and poor into America so they don;t have to deal with any civil uprisings demanding reform. This has to be dealt with. Mexicans should receive no preferential treatment over the millions of other Latin Americans who live in true third world countries who wish to come here. There are many West Africans who would love to come to this country as well and who don't think the American Southwest was "Stolen".

Influence(s): Far too many things to list.

Economy: Participatory economics. Society & economy exists to make individuals prosper. Greed-based economies either benefits the few, or become wholly deficient through massive regulations imposed by the few.

Religion: Ideally none. But since the gullible aren't going anywhere: freedom from & of religion.

Government: Loosely united anarchic communes.

Tax Money: Would be a superflous concept.

Drugs: Concerns individuals, not societies.

Gay Rights: Sexual preferrences concerns individuals, not societies.

Abortion: Concerns individuals, not societies.

Child Laws: Underage children would be the responsibility of the guardians. If the guardians aren't up to the task, then the children can appeal to the community. Teachers & the like will of course have to keep an eye out for child abuse. I'd consider children adults at the age of 16.

Immigration: Why shouldn't people be free to move around?

Ditto. Yay ParEcon!

In a nutshell:

Religion: I'm torn between theistic agnosticism or nontheism.

I tend more towards the latter because existence of the supernatural is inherently unanswerable; even if we are able to reduce all of human nature to material causes, we still can't eliminate the role of some kind of God. I think considering the question unanswerable (see the Fourteen Unanswerable Questions of Buddhist thought). The same is true of the afterlife; if there is one, great and if there isn't one I won't know it.

Economy: Pragmatic capitalism.

In other words, I go with what works. While I see a totally free market as the most desirable end, I do believe that such a model is inherently theoretical and so we need laws and regulations to keep our economy functioning as efficiently as possible within the current state of human society. As a result, I support logically justified environmental laws, workplace regulations, worker protections, centralized banking, corporate regulations, social/public services, and taxation among other things.

Government: I support representative democracy as the best form of government currently available, but I also believe in letting the system evolve naturally. Democracy should be encouraged but not forced upon nations not developed enough or stable enough for it.

Taxation: Whatever level is necessary to meet current obligations. The government should be fiscally responsible, but shouldn't have reservations about enacting programs vital to the future of the country because of cost. Higher taxes now are a small price to pay for "infinite" benefit later.

Drugs/Gay Rights:

I support legalizing drugs that do not have unavoidable addictive properties or that pose a danger to others; in other words, legalize marijuana, psychotropic mushrooms/herbs like psilocybin or peyote, and others depending on scientifically valid medical review. Others, like meth or cocaine, are simply too damaging to our society and economy to legalize.

Gay rights are human rights, and there is no reason why they should receive fewer than any other person.

Abortion/Child Laws I support abortion up to the first trimester, but after that I oppose it due to the developed state of the fetus and the simple fact that you have three months prior to decide if you want the child...it's not like buying a car where you can just terminate the deal because you suddenly change your mind. I think by that point it's just too developed mentally and physically to justify termination after that point.

Child laws? Protect the kids from harm...I think it's kind of ad-hoc for me depending on the situation.

Immigration Encourage and enforce legal immigration in order to protect migrants from abuse by unscrupulous employers.

While I see a totally free market as the most desirable end

Why?

Why?

Because at our current state of social/economic/technological development, no system is really ready to function as efficiently as the free market. It took thousands of years for modern capitalism to evolve, so I imagine it will take decades or even centuries for a new system to emerge that replaces capitalism.

That's assuming the pace of technological evolution continues to accelerate at its current rate; if things progress faster, we may end up reaching a new system even sooner, and if it slows then it will take longer. However, I do know beyond a doubt that capitalism is not the paragon of human economic advancement.

This makes no sense, I'm afraid.

Faith IS the base of the opinions. If you understand the faith, then you have a betetr chance of understanding the opinions.

To me, this makes 'them' entirely predictable.
But I'm finding fault with the thought process that lead to the faith, not the subsequent conclusions. Faith isn't a rational default position.Why?
Individual freedom. We've been over that, Soheran.

Because at our current state of social/economic/technological development, no system is really ready to function as efficiently as the free market. It took thousands of years for modern capitalism to evolve, so I imagine it will take decades or even centuries for a new system to emerge that replaces capitalism.

That's assuming the pace of technological evolution continues to accelerate at its current rate; if things progress faster, we may end up reaching a new system even sooner, and if it slows then it will take longer. However, I do know beyond a doubt that capitalism is not the paragon of human economic advancement.

No economic system will ever replace capitalism, as it is the economic system of voluntary individual action. Therefore, if it is the system of voluntary individual action, to have a different economic system would mean that this system would be based upon some other kind of action that is not based upon voluntary individual action. However, there is no human action outside of the individual, and since there is no substitute for action itself in an economy, this would imply that this system would be based upon involuntary individual action- i.e., coercion. To change from capitalism economically is to change to a coercive economy, or no economy at all.

capitalism...is the economic system of voluntary individual action.

no, it isn't.

no, it isn't.

And communism is? :rolleyes:

And communism is? :rolleyes:

one of the possiblities, yes

one of the possiblities, yes

Uh, no. There's nothing voluntary about collectivism- it is the antithesis of individual liberty.

No economic system will ever replace capitalism, as it is the economic system of voluntary individual action. Therefore, if it is the system of voluntary individual action, to have a different economic system would mean that this system would be based upon some other kind of action that is not based upon voluntary individual action. However, there is no human action outside of the individual, and since there is no substitute for action itself in an economy, this would imply that this system would be based upon involuntary individual action- i.e., coercion. To change from capitalism economically is to change to a coercive economy, or no economy at all.

I don't really know about that. Capitalism itself has evolved as the world's economy has developed and grown more interconnected; the dynamics of the system today are considerably different than those 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. It only appears like our system is the best because it is currently; however, the farther out in the future you project the harder it becomes to really know what will happen.

Also, we have to take in to account technology. If technology evolves to a certain level, the concept of resource scarcity may cease to exist and that would create a huge, literally civilization-altering change in our economic system. The market might still exist, but it would be irrevocably altered in any case.

Uh, no. There's nothing voluntary about collectivism- it is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Not if it's voluntary.

Uh, no. There's nothing voluntary about collectivism- it is the antithesis of individual liberty.

only on very very confused (and usually incoherent) conceptions of individual liberty

I don't really know about that. Capitalism itself has evolved as the world's economy has developed and grown more interconnected; the dynamics of the system today are considerably different than those 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. It only appears like our system is the best because it is currently; however, the farther out in the future you project the harder it becomes to really know what will happen.

Also, we have to take in to account technology. If technology evolves to a certain level, the concept of resource scarcity may cease to exist and that would create a huge, literally civilization-altering change in our economic system. The market might still exist, but it would be irrevocably altered in any case.

Well, in your last example, there's no need for any economy, seeing as that would be post-scarcity. That's a whole other ball game. But there have been thinkers and philosophers from Aristotle onwards who have been in favor of the Latin propitus- life, liberty, and estate. And there have been philosophers from Plato onwards who have advocated collectivism. Individual voluntary action will always be individual voluntary action- there's no way around it.

Not if it's voluntary.

Then it's not collectivism. It's voluntary association, which implies the ability to disassociate, and therefore is individualism, the opposite of collectivism. Whereas being forced onto a collective farm, knowing that you'll be shot if you leave and your day being planned out for you, is collectivism.

only on very very confused (and usually incoherent) conceptions of individual liberty

No, collectivism is the antithesis of individualism, as it implies the superceding of individual desires for the sake of some abstract "community" or "group" (usually powerful statists.) However, individualism gives the fate of every man to him or herself, to do as he wishes for his desires.

Because at our current state of social/economic/technological development, no system is really ready to function as efficiently as the free market.

Honestly, this does not move me at all.

Human beings have never needed "efficiency" - certainly not the sort that free-market capitalism brings. We have lived and prospered for tens of thousands of years with far fewer material goods than we currently possess; we do not need them.

If the cost of the maximization of material prosperity is a system in which one's capability to survive is held hostage by others, in which one-sided extortion replaces mutual respect, and in which inequality and hierarchy (with all the resulting lack of freedom) are the rule rather than the exception, then we should do away with the maximization of material prosperity, and we will be the better for it.

It is no accident that in all of the most natural human social relationships - within families, between friends, between lovers - to introduce capitalism, or any variety of market exchange, is generally regarded as an incredibly depraved and immoral act. It does not seem to me that our attitude should change much whether the victim is a sibling or a person on the other side of the planet.

It took thousands of years for modern capitalism to evolve, so I imagine it will take decades or even centuries for a new system to emerge that replaces capitalism.

We will never abolish scarcity through technology. We produce far more than we did fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago - astonishingly more than we did fifty thousand years ago - yet despite all of that, it does not satisfy us.

The only way to abolish scarcity is to abolish the culture that posits its existence.

It is no accident that in all of the most natural human social relationships - within families, between friends, between lovers - to introduce capitalism, or any variety of market exchange, is generally regarded as an incredibly depraved and immoral act.

hell, it's viewed with suspicion (at best) among a whole host of relations within otherwise capitalist institutions

Individual freedom. We've been over that, Soheran.

Capitalism and individual freedom are incompatible. I am not autonomous if I am constantly being compelled and constrained by the alleged property rights of others.

Then it's not collectivism. It's voluntary association, which implies the ability to disassociate, and therefore is individualism, the opposite of collectivism.
Furthermore, if it's voluntary then it's entirely consistent with a free market, since some people in the free market could well choose to form a collective.

Those who chose not to join would not be required to do so.

Not if it's voluntary.

Unfortunately, a central precept of right-wing or American libertarianism is that no such thing exists. This precept -- without a shred of truth to it -- is mainly based on the tendency to overgeneralize and engage in strawmen like attacks and criticisms, largely born out of some inexplicable need to associate with Cold War-era Republicanism or conservatism (Joseph Stalin = "collectivism" :eek: :eek: :eek: ). This propensity to overgeneralize, oversimplify, and generally ignore reality is one of the (many, many, many) reasons why right-wing or American libertarianism has no meaningful or consequential following in the political world other than the occasional letter to the editor or internet blog.

(of course, left-wing or European libertarianism, in my personal experience, doesn't even get letters to the editor, but that's a different can of worms [Private Property = "teh evil fascism!" :eek: :eek: :eek: ]. Meh.)

I'm joking, but...in all the choices i must do, I ask to myself: what lord Tywin will do in my place? (For understand, consulting ASOIAF of GRRMartin) The result is here.

Furthermore, if it's voluntary then it's entirely consistent with a free market...

But not necessarily capitalism (http://www.mutualist.org). But, of course, "free market" and "capitalism" are two separate concepts.








**running dive for cover**

Capitalism and individual freedom are incompatible. I am not autonomous if I am constantly being compelled and constrained by the alleged property rights of others.
I am not free if I'm forbidden to serve my own needs through stockpiling tradeable goods, something you clearly oppose.

Incentives happen. There's no reason for you to object to some of them simply because they're born of capitalism.

But not necessarily capitalism (http://www.mutualist.org). But, of course, "free market" and "capitalism" are two separate concepts.
But what if I come to own the means of production through free exchange?

I am not free if I'm forbidden to serve my own needs through stockpiling tradeable goods, something you clearly oppose.

Fine. I hate freedom.* Happy?

*When it is defined as the right to extort, exploit, and tyrannize over others.

Guess my politics!

Government: Democractic to an extent, voting available only to those with full mental faculties. Any mental illness within the past five years makes one ineligeble to vote.

What you say is interesting. Primarily, because the phrase "mental illness" not not distinguish between a physical malady of the brain and a problem of the mind. (You'd think it would, but it doesn't.) Hence why depression is generally considered a "mental illness" even though it is only an imbalance of chemicals, and even some types of brain tumors considered mental illnesses (because they alter slightly the functioning of the brain). By these definitions, a stroke is mental illness. (It is not however, counted that way, because people have known about strokes long before they learned that people aren't just "loony" (a term that incidentally is derived from the (thankfully outdated) beleif that the phases of the moon can be a cause for strange behavior and temporary psychosis).

Basically, due to the stigma and the fact that virtually all behavioral "dysfunctions" are generally classified as "mental disorders" (such as ADD (You have no idea how many of history's great inventors, scientists, authors, playwrites, architects, artists, and strategists have had that.), SVD (Almost all of the people suffering from this are in science or computer engineering.), Asperger's disorder (Again, almost all of the people sufferring from this are intillectuals. (One of its components is a staggeringly high IQ.)), or Depression (which absolutely anyone can get (Abraham Lincoln, Merryweather(or however it's spelled) Lewis (as in Lewis of Lewis and Clark), Ulysess S. Grant, Edgar Allen Poe (Sadly, Poe and Grant ended up resorting to alchoholism.), Julia Morgan (one of history's greatest architects (Hearst Castle (AKA: La Cuesta Encandada/ La Casa Grande), The Fairmont Hotel, the Hearst Building (L.A.), and more than a thousand other buildings), and even, if I recall correctly, Luwig van Beethoven had depression at some point (sometimes many points) in their lives. Many historians beleive (from the writings of himself and his friends) that Abraham Lincoln may actually have had Bipolar Disorder.), etc.), you would disenfranchise many far-more-than-capable people. In fact, studies have shown that an entire third of all people have some sort of "mental disorder" (whether diagnosed or otherwise). Basically, you would disenfranchise an entire third of eligable voters. You yourslef may even be disenfranchised. With all due respect, it seems only logical that you perhaps rethink your policy.

Guess my politics!

Well, compared to me, you're most likely a communist.

Influence(s): Alexander Hamilton, Jesus Christ, John Calvin, Milton Friedman, Napoleon Bonaparte, Niccolo Machiavelli, Otto von Bismarck, Ronald Reagan

Economy: Get yer gov'nmunt off mah monah! :p :D

Well, really, I don't all-out hate state roads, or the USPS. I just prefer that government programmes try to not go billions of dollars in the red and not do a damn thing to try and get out of it.

Religion: I'm a Calvinist. I like Fundamental Protestantism. Should the government regulate my specific denomination? No. Do I mind public prayer? I don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't need to be institutionalized. As the saying goes, as long as teachers give tests, there'll be school prayer. ;) I'm all for the ten commandments being displayed on public property and in court rooms, too. Sure, the first four are touchy as they apply specifically to Judiaism/Christianity, but the last six aren't bad moral guidelines, three of which are already in our legal code. However, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to practice what you want. I'd prefer you be a Christian :p but that's not my decision.

Government: A SUPERSMALL represenative democracy, somewhat like the one the United States has now. Direct Democracy is not only impractical in a large nation, but the people, as a whole, make stupid decisions for various reasons, mostly being they can't be educated on all the issues all the time.

Tax Money: Defence, Law Enforcement, Roads, Education (in the form of vouchers), not necessarily in that order. Oh, and maybe a tiny fraction to technology development in the sense of "greener" things, and Space exploration. Taxes should come through a sales tax, and a small Reverse Income Tax (as laid out by Friedman and others).

Drugs: Harder drugs -- LSD, cocaine, etc -- are illegal, but less emphasis on punishment, more on rehabilitation. Marijuana(sp?) and just about everything else legal, though performance-affecting drugs (refering to hallucinogens) fall under DUI laws, which will be enforced and punished ruthlessly. All legal drugs are taxed nastily.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage is illegal. Aside from that, everything else goes.

Abortion: Ideally, never. However, I could compromise and allow for it when the mother's life is in danger, and when the child inside is already dead.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged. (I'm biased, though -- I was adopted.) Child labour laws are loosened, as if teenagers want to work, they should be allowed to. Saftey regulations are up to the individual businesses, but they need to be adequate, and the younger they are, the sricter they are.

Immigration: Sure, but come here the legal way, and you better be worth something. Speaking from America's history, the immigrants that came from before 1950, they WANTED to come here to better themselves AND AMERICA, therefore everyone else around them. (Not saying there weren't people like that after 1950). If you're a decent human being, sure! Come right on in, but do it legally. With that said, the immigration policy shouldn't be such a fishnet filled with algae as it is.

Fine. I hate freedom.* Happy?

*When it is defined as the right to extort, exploit, and tyrannize over others.

You don't. Liberty, by its very nature, does not include the liberty to take away the liberty of others. For example, I do not have the right to blare loud music out my window all night, because it would take away my neighbors' right to sleep. Without sleep, they're not going to be very happy, and happiness is an inalienable right. Therefore, even in a society with unlimited freedoms, I would not have the freedom to do such things. What you've described that you hate is not freedom; it is the absence thereof. It would appear that the reason you hate such things is, because you do, in fact, love liberty as a bird loves to fly. :)





"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -Thomas Jefferson

--He then proceeded with:
"I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Fine. I hate freedom.* Happy?

*When it is defined as the right to extort, exploit, and tyrannize over others.
By your definition, a free society is one in which no one is ever able to benefit from his own labour over the long term.

You support the free exchange of labour, but not of goods. But don't you see, when being exchanged goods are acting as a proxy for labour. The only difference is that goods (or money) can be stored without losing value.

If I like to make machine tools, but there is presently no demand for machine tools, then my current labour can't benefit me (unless I do something I don't want to do). You won't let me stockpile machine tools for later trade.

Well, obviously since we are on this site, many of us like to prescribe to a particular ideology's or political party/group's name, but honestly, do you agree, word-for-word, with the beleifs of the entire political theory? Probably not. I'm sure you might dissent slightly from some of the beleifs of your particular version of what the world requires politically.

Hm. I sort of have my own "ideology".

So, what's your personal politics?

Socialism.

Influence(s): Leftwing guys like Lenin, Karl Marx, Stalin, Mao, Juche system

Economy: Entirely owned by the state, "proletarians governing proletarians", welfare state, state planning committee, but certain small businesses that is in demand, like butcher shops for example.

Religion: Freedom of religion, but also separation of church and state.

Government: One party state that works democratically.

Tax Money: No tax.

Drugs: Completely legal, but the government won't produce any.

Gay Rights: They can do whatever they want, just don't infringe on the rights of others, so yes, I have some libertarianism in my ideal state. As there's separation of church and state, the government wouldn't be involved in marriages at all probably, so it wouldn't even be a concern, I'm not sure. Up to the government.

Abortion: Let the government decide.

Child Laws: Orphons will be raised by the government, perhaps drafted, will attend free education, will be able to attend a university after grade school, setup with an apartment when they meet the age of adulthood, so there's opportunities for a successful life for all.

Immigration: Regulated by the government with demand, closed borders.

No economic system will ever replace capitalism, as it is the economic system of voluntary individual action. Therefore, if it is the system of voluntary individual action, to have a different economic system would mean that this system would be based upon some other kind of action that is not based upon voluntary individual action. However, there is no human action outside of the individual, and since there is no substitute for action itself in an economy, this would imply that this system would be based upon involuntary individual action- i.e., coercion. To change from capitalism economically is to change to a coercive economy, or no economy at all.
Hear hear!

*snip*
Our systems are so similar! :eek:

You support the free exchange of labour,

Sort of. I have no problem with the simple exchange of favors. I do have a problem with a society whose economy is characterized by any kind of market exchange - including that of labor.

but not of goods.

Labor is not its product. I know this does not exactly match with what I've said previously; I've realized since that I was making the same error right-libertarian arguments for property rights do, permitting individual action to define what are essentially social choices.

The right criterion for use is not labor, but need. There is no reason that the needs of the more productive should be weighed more than the needs of the less productive, except for the sake of incentives.

But don't you see, when being exchanged goods are acting as a proxy for labour. The only difference is that goods (or money) can be stored without losing value.

You are conceiving of labor as a commodity. I am not. I am conceiving it as human action.

Protecting the product of labor has nothing to do with the good that protecting voluntary labor is supposed to advance - basic individual liberty. In fact, the two conflict with one another.

If I like to make machine tools, but there is presently no demand for machine tools, then my current labour can't benefit me (unless I do something I don't want to do).

If you really like to make machine tools, then you won't care if you are not granted absolute rights to your product.

If you do not, then don't make them.

By your definition, a free society is one in which no one is ever able to benefit from his own labour over the long term.

You support the free exchange of labour, but not of goods. But don't you see, when being exchanged goods are acting as a proxy for labour. The only difference is that goods (or money) can be stored without losing value.

If I like to make machine tools, but there is presently no demand for machine tools, then my current labour can't benefit me (unless I do something I don't want to do). You won't let me stockpile machine tools for later trade.

Don't forget that the value of goods derives not from the labor spent on them, but how people view the value of those goods. :D

Don't forget that the value of goods derives not from the labor spent on them, but how people view the value of those goods. :D
Of course. But that wasn't really central to my point.

Sort of. I have no problem with the simple exchange of favors. I do have a problem with a society whose economy is characterized by any kind of market exchange - including that of labor.
I might need you describe your ideal economy to me, then. I think you're creating a free rider problem (which our previous discussion about the exchange of labour was supposed to solve).
Labor is not its product. I know this does not exactly match with what I've said previously; I've realized since that I was making the same error right-libertarian arguments for property rights do, permitting individual action to define what are essentially social choices.
What do you mean by "social choices"? Decisions are ultimately made by individuals, not by society.
The right criterion for use is not labor, but need. There is no reason that the needs of the more productive should be weighed more than the needs of the less productive, except for the sake of incentives.
See? There's your free-rider problem.

And even so, is there a reason to deprive the more productive of preferential access to the surplus?
You are conceiving of labor as a commodity. I am not. I am conceiving it as human action.
It can't be both?

Anything valued by two people is a potential commodity. That could include my labour.
Protecting the product of labor has nothing to do with the good that protecting voluntary labor is supposed to advance - basic individual liberty. In fact, the two conflict with one another.
What freedoms does your liberty entail, then? Am I not permitted to choose the sort of life I'd like to live, or must I choose from a list vetted by the group?

I would have describe myself as a ParEcon socialist.

Influences: Michael Albert, Robin Hahnel, Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Noam Chomsky, Michael Harrington, Emma Goldman, Rousseau, Adam Smith (that's right)

Economy: Decentralized participatory economy, in which all workers democratically self-manage their workplaces, and consumers collectively determine consumption the distribution of services. No private industry except in seperatist communities.

Education: Free education for all. So long as someone is willing to put in the effort to doe the work, they will be given complete support until they define a career path. For retraining, and people returning to school for more education, costs will be kept minimal.

Politics: Participatory politics. Decentralized federation of communities nested together to make decisions. Direct democracy allow all citizens voice in governance. Federations of communes only have the power to make decisions that will affect only their members. Right of secession and the right of freedom of movement completely upheld.

Healthcare: Free health care provided by the community for all reasonable medical procedures. Thus, one doesn't have to worry about not getting a heart transplant, but one can still "pay" for non reconstructive plastic surgery.

Military: Military limited to self defense forces

Natural resources: Owned by the whole of society. Resource extraction based solely on use.

Housing: Communal or individual living arrangements, depending on personal choice. Free housing.

Work: Worker self managment, with balanced job complexes to ensure equity. Renumeration based on effort.

Taxes: Concept is obselete. Communities vote to use production surplus to meet social needs rather than to renumerate.

Religion, sex: No restrictions so long as activities do not directly harm anyone.

Crime: Rehabilitation based criminal justice system. Jury trial system with public defender lawyers.

Drugs: As long as their is no private drug industry, it is allowed. However, this is where education comes in.

Influence(s):Life, The Universe, and Everything :D
(I'm serious; everything influences me.)

Economy: As long as people aren't being cheated out of well-earned wealth and as long as everyone has food, water, clothes, cleanliness (don't want epidemics), and maybe some shelter, I'm fine. So that puts me as a socialist-capitalist.

Of course, the optimal government would use the capitalist market to provide these supplies. With the exception of USPS vs. UPS, businesses are always more efficient.

Religion: I am a monotheist. I believe there is one god, an afterlife (no reincarnation. I'd think there'd be more signs), and doing good is good. But you go believe what you want. So long as noone else's rights are infringed.

Government: Democracy=good. However, bureaucracy=bad, so democratic republic.

Tax Money: Tax as needed to do what the government needs. The rich should be taxed more (as it is redundant to tax those whom you assist).

Drugs: As long as the drug's use does not harm others, use it.
But drive drunk and hurt people, and you get shipped to the labor prisons (preferred jail (they gotta earn 2.5X the cost of crime (1 for victim, 1 for support, .5 for tax).

Gay Rights: Yep, they got 'em. marry who or what you want. I really couldn't care less.

Abortion: Until the fetus becomes viable, it's fine.

Child Laws: The children are our future. Protect their rights of freedom from fraud and force.

Immigration: Come in. Just, let us know. And learn our language. And work. That's all.

Influences: Everything and everyone (though some people influence me away from their beliefs)

Economy: The government should provide basic services. Anything beyond that should be the domain of private industry. Governments should not constantly subsidise businesses, as taxpayer dollars should not go to supporting a failing enterprise. Government should investigate fraud.

Religion: I subscribe to the Jewish faith, and I tend to side with the Orthodox on most matters. But I normally leave my faith outside of secular politics.

Government: The only governments with a right to exist are those that are answerable to the people. Any rebellion against a non-democratic government is justified.

Tax Money: Tax as needed to do what the government needs. The rich should be taxed more (as it is redundant to tax those whom you assist). (Yes, I took this verbatim from Minaris, as it sums my views up nicely)

Drugs: Soft drugs like marijuana should be legal (though requiring a minimal age), while hard drugs like cocaine are far too dangerous and should be banned. Smoking in public places should be banned if a health risk can be shown.

Gay Rights: Gays are humans, and deserve all the rights thereof, including marriage.

Abortion: Keep it legal, but work on ways to render it unnecessary.

Military: Whatever is necessary to defend the country, though stay ethical. In some countries (Israel) that means mandatory conscription. In other countries (US) that means voluntary military, but needs to be a powerhouse. In still others (say, Iceland) only a self-defense force is needed.

Sex: Between two people truly capable of giving their consent, OK by me, except for incest (and even then only when there is a real risk of a defective child being born).

Crime: Depends on the crime, and the criminal. Burglars on meth need rehabilitation. Corrupt executives need deterrence. Serial killers, traitors, slaveholders, and mass murderers need to die.

I would have describe myself as a ParEcon socialist.And here I thought we were just called 'nilla anarchists. Anyway, reading that post was like reading my very own words.

How about we buy an island & go do our own thing there? - I know some people who're up for it & shares our sentiments.

ach, whatever...

Influence(s):dunno, loads. i read a history of anarchism, that gave me ideas. i've browsed through stuff by kropotkin, bakunin, luxemburgh, goldman, malatesta, proudhon, tolstoy, marx, and others and of course some of their ideas rubbed off on me. most of my inspiration has come from living my life though, having the family and friends i have, going to the schools i went to, questioning everything that's ever been presented to me.

Economy: i'd like to believe in the feasability of 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' but i am somewhat dissolusioned by the greed of certain of my friends at the moment. what i do know is that i think a capitalist economy is nasty and necessarily so, it cannot be just, and it cannot benefit humanity in the long term. it is a system that requires and strives for instant gratification for those in control, whatever the long-term costs, and breeds such a desire in those who grow up surrounded by it.

Religion: i think theism is bullshit, but i'm not necessarily anti-spirituality. i think it is far too deterministic to believe that the only truth to this universe is that which we can perceive through our 5 senses. whether there is anyhting to spirituality i don't know, but i'm not going to write off the possibility of things existing beyond our ken.

Government: as little as possible, most definitely preferably none. to me government breeds politics and politics is the anethema to proper democracy. of course i realise that some politics is necessary because truth is in the mind of the subject, but i think that, in a system of monolithic government, politics abstracts the truth to the point where it is not there for anyone anymore.

Tax Money: in my ideal society taxing income would not be necessary or possible because achieving anything above sufficiency would require the active parcipitation of every member of a community according to their (dis)ability. so tax not in monetary terms but in participatory terms, and not to be enforced with anything more than social pressure.

Drugs: drug use is fine, but intoxication is no excuse. if anyone is found to be negligent due to the use of drugs in a situation where they would have had prior knowledge of the need to be clear-headed then they deserve to be seriously punished. otherwise i cannot see drugs as anything criminal.

Gay Rights: this really should not be an issue and i am constantly astounded that it is. every member of a society should have the same rights as every other, no exceptions.

Abortion: do everything possible to limit the number of abortions happening (education, freely available contraception, full provision for adoption, etc.), but it should be completely legal and the woman's choice at the end of the day.

Child Laws: as far as i'm concerned there's no reason's why children should not have the same rights as adults, although i'm pretty sure i'm not fully aware if all the issues.

Immigration: open/no borders, there's no need for them. we are all human beings with equal right to all of the wealth in the universe

And here I thought we were just called 'nilla anarchists. Anyway, reading that post was like reading my very own words.

How about we buy an island & go do our own thing there? - I know some people who're up for it & shares our sentiments.

yay, for opting out! do i have to know what ParEcon and 'nilla mean to live on this island utopia? i think i'd like to live there, except i'd prefer a justice system that was not based on any particular written laws and where each case was judged entirely on it's own merits by someone recognised and elected by all for their fairness and compassion rather than anything prescribed.

Hm. I really like this topic, as I said, I support Socialism:

Economy I said that I would like everything nationalized earlier, only minimal small businesses upon demand, creating a central planning committee, workers paid by demand of the industry by the state.

First when we take control, we must nationalize the banks, take over the industrial centers, nationalize everything, leave the butcher shops alone, leave the small proletarian businesses alone, help them with supplies and such, not take away from them.

Everyone will keep what they earn, possibly create some labor unions to have representatives in the government that document the progress of everything.

Religion As I said earlier, separation of church and state.

Government A one party system with a constitution, no one man absolutism, very progressive to the betterment of the people. "Proletarians representing proletarians" essentially

Tax No tax.

Drugs Legalized but not nationalized.

Gay Rights Everyone has a right to sexual preference, throw some libertarianism in the mix.

Abortion Something the government would decide, but probably prochoice.

Child Laws Treated well, if orphaned they would be raised, free education, free healthcare, setup with basic housing once an adult, opprtunities to progress, not like in America.

Immigration Closed borders, immigration upon demand.

Military Defend the nation, boost morale, boost pride, do some work in peacetime that helps the nation collectively, a volunteer military is preferred.

Crime Favor rehabilitation over deterrence, would definately be a discussion with the government when creating laws.

Healthcare Free for all.

Education Free for all

Housing Free basic housing

Work Paid by national demand

Natural Resources Nationalized industries - Exported, sold to citizens as luxury items, bartered with other nations for their goods, many ways to utilize it.

I feel strongly about self-reliance, a nation should only export its surplus, never be dependent on other nations. Also, I'm very fond of science, so alot of funding would go in that direction, especially into space programs.

Evil and Insanity mixed into a stewpot, with a couple of gallons of beer added for good measure.

I might need you describe your ideal economy to me, then. I think you're creating a free rider problem (which our previous discussion about the exchange of labour was supposed to solve).

I see no reason why a voluntary system of labor could not account for most of society's actual needs.

What do you mean by "social choices"? Decisions are ultimately made by individuals, not by society.

So? The question is not who makes the decisions, rather who is affected by them.

See? There's your free-rider problem.

It may surprise you, but I don't care for making the productive be productive. The price in freedom is simply not worth it.

Work people absolutely do not want to do simply should not be done.

And even so, is there a reason to deprive the more productive of preferential access to the surplus?

Yes - maintaining equality, and thus non-coercion.

It can't be both?

Anything valued by two people is a potential commodity. That could include my labour.

It is obviously a commodity, but I'm not concerned for its nature as a commodity (not directly in terms of freedom, anyway).

You have no right to the value of your labor. What you have a right to is to decide how you allocate your labor.

What freedoms does your liberty entail, then? Am I not permitted to choose the sort of life I'd like to live, or must I choose from a list vetted by the group?

Live the life you want, in a manner that extends the same right to everybody else.

And even so, is there a reason to deprive the more productive of preferential access to the surplus?

inegalitarian access to resources automatically leads to inegalitarian power relations. always has, always will.

Leftist communist/anarchist theoy. So I have questions to any followers of said philosophy: 1. Where does the incentive to work come from? 2. How are consumer needs met by such institutions? 3. Whats wrong with working hard and making lots of money? 4. Why should the rest of society support the lazy? 5. How come all communist based societys have collapsed? 5. How does true democracy in such a society exist if people want to go back to capitalism. Please dont take me as a troll, I merely want to understand WHY people think such societys are superior to capitalism.

1. Where does the incentive to work come from?

There are a million different answers.

Some varieties - market socialism, mutualism, and the like - would give the same answer capitalism does; because you're paid for it. The difference is the abolition of the distinction between owner and worker.

Alternatively, people would work out of social pressure, boredom, a need to feel useful, and enjoyment of the activity.

2. How are consumer needs met by such institutions?

Through democracy, through negotiation, or through a market.

3. Whats wrong with working hard and making lots of money?

Economic inequality leads to hierarchy and compulsion, because it marginalizes and degrades those at the bottom of the scale.

4. Why should the rest of society support the lazy?

Everyone is lazy. We should stop trying to "solve" this "problem," and instead embrace it.

5. How come all communist based societys have collapsed?

Which particular ones are you referring to?

5. How does true democracy in such a society exist if people want to go back to capitalism.

Who's stopping them?

But I'm finding fault with the thought process that lead to the faith, not the subsequent conclusions. Faith isn't a rational default position.



Depends on what your definition of 'rational' is. I'd say, if all the evidence supports it, it is rational.

Of course, we may each agree to disagree about what constitutes the 'evidence' we can accept.

Uh, no. There's nothing voluntary about collectivism- it is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Arse.

What if a group of people individually decide to collectivise?

yay, for opting out! do i have to know what ParEcon and 'nilla mean to live on this island utopia? i think i'd like to live there, except i'd prefer a justice system that was not based on any particular written laws and where each case was judged entirely on it's own merits by someone recognised and elected by all for their fairness and compassion rather than anything prescribed.I'm with you on the justice system thing, at least in small scale communities.

Parecon is the typing friendly abbreviation of participatory economics. In essence, it's a need-based system of resource distribution, as opposed to a greed-based one. And it's another one of those compelling ideas no one's ever had the balls to try. Google it if you want to know more. Plenty of info out there.

Vanilla implies "plain/standard/default". Nothing more.

Economy Everything nationalised under the state that way everyone will have enough and no greedy capitalists will take it all.

Religion No religion will we make the founder of our system(inthis case me) GOD

Government A one party system where anyone who disargees with me is taken during the night and shot

Tax No tax

Drugs Legalized

Gay Rights yes

Abortion prochoice.

Child Laws put to work at 5 no free education, no labour laws no child protection laws expect for againsts pedos

Immigration Closed borders on both sides no gets in or out alive

Military Defend the nation, take over and annex smaller nations, stop revolutions

Crime Favor one strike and your out

Healthcare highly expensive

Education not needed since they will be working from 5

Housing housing based on how high you are in the party the higher you are the better you get

Oh my... how this thread has grown.:p

not taxing things, thats not going to work.

not taxing things, thats not going to work.

depends on how the system is setup. no need for taxes when the institutions of wealth creation are already owned by the community and said wealth can therefore be allocated as the community sees fit.

depends on how the system is setup. no need for taxes when the institutions of wealth creation are already owned by the community and said wealth can therefore be allocated as the community sees fit.

Or when 'wealth' is irrelevent. :)

Arse.

What if a group of people individually decide to collectivise?

They wouldn't be collectivist, oh polite one. They would still be individualist so long as they have the ability to freely disassociate from the others, since it would be respecting individual rights over those of some abstract "group". However, if they're forced to stay for the sake of the "group", then that would be collectivism.

They wouldn't be collectivist, oh polite one. They would still be individualist so long as they have the ability to freely disassociate from the others, since it would be respecting individual rights over those of some abstract "group". However, if they're forced to stay for the sake of the "group", then that would be collectivism.

No - that would be 'imprisonment'.

Collectivism means collectivism, not some weird version of compulsary labour that you just thought up...

They wouldn't be collectivist, oh polite one. They would still be individualist so long as they have the ability to freely disassociate from the others, since it would be respecting individual rights over those of some abstract "group". However, if they're forced to stay for the sake of the "group", then that would be collectivism.
Or if they try and force their views over a large group, which is even worse.

No - that would be 'imprisonment'.

Collectivism means collectivism, not some weird version of compulsary labour that you just thought up...

but when have his type ever felt the need to use words in ways that are intelligible or reasonable? when in trouble, shift definitions.

but when have his type ever felt the need to use words in ways that are intelligible or reasonable? when in trouble, shift definitions.

This shift occuring by focusing exclusively on the issue of free association, thereby trying to force any sort of legitimate "collectivism" into the capitalist framework ("oh, well, you were really capitalist all along"). Of course, this shifting necessarily and convieniently ignores the existance of any number of freely associative "collectivist" arangements that employ an explicitly anti-capitalist framework. This is why they must assume that "collectivism" = "imprisonment;" doing otherwise would be to recognize the internal consistancy or basic legitimacy of many libertarian anti-capitalist ideologies based on free association. This, in turn, removes the ability to claim free association for capitalism exclusively; almighty God is no longer omnipotent.

(edit: At any rate, cognitive functioning is a lot simplier when one is either righteous or evil. "Simplier" does not necessarily reflect reality, however, and those people who recognize the shadows on the cave wall for what they are, well, they just like to make trouble. :) )

Well difficult but i definitly go with anarchists,when there is any.
most people describe me as post leftist,sic...
The point beeing, i hate concentration...
But i love socio cultural communication,i like humor,i like a good fight,
i don't believe in religion,despotism,and representative democracy....
i hate the liberal trend,i hate all trends,
I love people ,only if they are beamed in front of me....

Kirk yo chekov...

Depends on what your definition of 'rational' is. I'd say, if all the evidence supports it, it is rational.
Ahh, another fan of induction.

I need the evidence to be conclusive. Otherwise, no conclusion is rational.

Who's stopping them?
And that's a great answer. If your system is non-coersive, it allows those who prefer a capitalist system to go build one.

Ahh, another fan of induction.

I need the evidence to be conclusive. Otherwise, no conclusion is rational.It seems to me that everyone takes at least some things based upon faith. We take it for granted that reality is reality and not some illusion, for instance.

No - that would be 'imprisonment'.

Collectivism means collectivism, not some weird version of compulsary labour that you just thought up...

Collectivism necessarily is a focus on the "rights" of the so-called "group", which take precedence over the individual (hence the incessant whining about "greedy individuals" etc.) Unfortunately, this gives carte blanche for "the group" to do whatever they want with the individual so as to serve "the group" best. Unfortunately, "the group" does not exist- only individuals do. So this means that some individuals are forced to serve other individuals- hence, collectivism is no different from imprisonment and compulsory labor.

but when have his type ever felt the need to use words in ways that are intelligible or reasonable? when in trouble, shift definitions.

No, so sorry, but collectivism is the opposite of individualism. It may be otherwise in communist fantasy land, but not in reality. Just because I and others do not also live in communist fantasy land as well does not mean that we're not being "intelligible" or "reasonable"- quite the opposite, actually.

This shift occuring by focusing exclusively on the issue of free association, thereby trying to force any sort of legitimate "collectivism" into the capitalist framework ("oh, well, you were really capitalist all along"). Of course, this shifting necessarily and convieniently ignores the existance of any number of freely associative "collectivist" arangements that employ an explicitly anti-capitalist framework. This is why they must assume that "collectivism" = "imprisonment;" doing otherwise would be to recognize the internal consistancy or basic legitimacy of many libertarian anti-capitalist ideologies based on free association. This, in turn, removes the ability to claim free association for capitalism exclusively; almighty God is no longer omnipotent.

Not necessarily capitalist, but individualist, which is the opposite of collectivist group focus, but which is related to capitalism. I would not mind a bunch of hippies living in a commune somewhere and farming and not having property and smoking pot all day- that's their choice. (But they would not get very far without having money as a calculating device). However, ultimately, it is not collectivist, because individual rights are still inalienable, and "the group" has no power. There is ultimately no collective- there are only individuals relating with one another.

(edit: At any rate, cognitive functioning is a lot simplier when one is either righteous or evil. "Simplier" does not necessarily reflect reality, however, and those people who recognize the shadows on the cave wall for what they are, well, they just like to make trouble. :) )

I have absolutely no idea what point this is meant to convey.

inegalitarian access to resources automatically leads to inegalitarian power relations. always has, always will.
I still don't see why that's a bad thing, but I don't think we'll find any common ground in that discussion.

I see no reason why a voluntary system of labor could not account for most of society's actual needs.
Defining those needs is the hard part.

In fact, I think the distinction between wants and needs might be illusory.
So? The question is not who makes the decisions, rather who is affected by them.
So you have some sort of enforcement mechanism?
It may surprise you, but I don't care for making the productive be productive. The price in freedom is simply not worth it.
That's fair. Good answer.
Work people absolutely do not want to do simply should not be done.
I'm not sure I want to live in that society. There's a lot of unpleasant work that benafits me, but not so much that I want to do it. Plus, the set of work I want to do changes a lot based on what my rewards are. Incentives matter.
It is obviously a commodity, but I'm not concerned for its nature as a commodity (not directly in terms of freedom, anyway).

You have no right to the value of your labor. What you have a right to is to decide how you allocate your labor.
Okay. You're certainly consistent.

Thank you very much for answering my questions. I think I finally understand your preferred society.

I also don't want to live there.

I still don't see why that's a bad thing, but I don't think we'll find any common ground in that discussion.So does this mean that you're perfectly comfortable with other people having more power than you?

It seems to me that everyone takes at least some things based upon faith. We take it for granted that reality is reality and not some illusion, for instance.

That's true. We can only put faith that our human constructs can work as we designed them to.

In the end, all governments can work in fairly utopian fashion. The only thing that stops them is human nature.

The only way any of our personal visions of Utopia can exist is if the system is obeyed without coercion and corruption, I beleive.

It seems to me that everyone takes at least some things based upon faith. We take it for granted that reality is reality and not some illusion, for instance.
And I think that's silly. I think we should all be aware of our assumptions, including things like "the physical world exists largely as I perceive it" and "physical laws persist over time".

There's a difference between acting as if these things are true and genuinely believing them to be true.

So does this mean that you're perfectly comfortable with other people having more power than you?
They earned it.

And I think that's silly. I think we should all be aware of our assumptions, including things like "the physical world exists largely as I perceive it" and "physical laws persist over time".

There's a difference between acting as if these things are true and genuinely believing them to be true.
who said once, the only sure thing is the one i don't know

And I think that's silly. I think we should all be aware of our assumptions, including things like "the physical world exists largely as I perceive it" and "physical laws persist over time".

There's a difference between acting as if these things are true and genuinely believing them to be true.Why would we act if the things were true unless we had faith that doing so was a good idea?

They earned it.According to others; what if you didn't agree that they'd earned it?

No, so sorry, but collectivism is the opposite of individualism.

not if you aren't using words in incoherent ways. which your idea that collectives aren't really collectives demonstrates quite clearly that you are.

And here I thought we were just called 'nilla anarchists. Anyway, reading that post was like reading my very own words.

How about we buy an island & go do our own thing there? - I know some people who're up for it & shares our sentiments.

Sounds sweet. ParEcon does fit under the rather large heading of Libertarian socialism/Anarchism. I'm all for doing our own thing.

Defining those needs is the hard part.

In fact, I think the distinction between wants and needs might be illusory.

I would define them fairly broadly - that which is necessary to maintain a free existence at a decent standard of living.

Defined as such, they are highly relative to the material prosperity of a given society - meaning that what is required for such an existence in our present society would likely not be required in others.

(Though, looking back on my earlier posts, I think I was using the term then in a more absolute sense - that which must be necessary for such an existence, whatever the material prosperity of the society.)

So you have some sort of enforcement mechanism?

More a lack of an enforcement mechanism (for at least some kinds of property rights). Natural power differences are not that great, and can be dealt with with a minimum of community-based law enforcement and universal training in self-defense.

I'm not sure I want to live in that society. There's a lot of unpleasant work that benafits me, but not so much that I want to do it.

The problem is that no one wants to do it; that is why you need incentives.

The social system thus makes certain goods conditional on tasks that are not required morally and are not desired for their internal goods. The result is a reduction in freedom.

Incentives matter.

Yes, they do - and as with my earlier mention of informal exchange of labor, I see no reason to prohibit the occasional "incentives" arrangement. My problem is with a society dependent on incentives, a society whose economy is characterized by them. The result will always tend to be a lack of freedom.

Edit: And I should clarify that by "incentives" I am refering exclusively to external rewards.

I still don't see why that's a bad thing

because of the inevitable results of inegalitarian power relations - in particular, privilege and the elimination of meaningful freedom.

They earned it.

So if they happened to have the luck to be born into a rich family, or happened to be willing to step on others to get to the top, they earned it? :rolleyes:

They wouldn't be collectivist, oh polite one. They would still be individualist so long as they have the ability to freely disassociate from the others, since it would be respecting individual rights over those of some abstract "group". However, if they're forced to stay for the sake of the "group", then that would be collectivism.

I'll grant you that, but only on the condition that you grant me that this use of "collectivism" is a useless, irrelevant term that has no bearing on the more libertarian left-wing ideologies.

And it really should be acknowledged that coercion is hardly confined to that of the "collectivist" nature. Plenty of individuals coerce others to serve their own selfish ends, not some alleged social good.

I'll grant you that, but only on the condition that you grant me that this use of "collectivism" is a useless, irrelevant term that has no bearing on the more libertarian left-wing ideologies.

And it really should be acknowledged that coercion is hardly confined to that of the "collectivist" nature. Plenty of individuals coerce others to serve their own selfish ends, not some alleged social good.

Collectivism, in itself, is not a bad thing, if it is done in an egailitarian, non-hierarchal manner.

So if they happened to have the luck to be born into a rich family, or happened to be willing to step on others to get to the top, they earned it? :rolleyes:

more generally, after the first set of people 'earned it' (whatever the hell that means) they won't immediately use their newfound power to set things up so that they and their friends and family will have to do less to 'earn it' the next time?

Collectivism, in itself, is not a bad thing, if it is done in an egailitarian, non-hierarchal manner.

Yes, but since Greill does not wish to recognize this, why bother arguing over it?

He is arguing that the proposed alternatives to capitalism are "collectivist" and that "collectivism," because it cannot be voluntary, is inherently unfree. The existence of voluntary non-capitalist systems destroys this argument without any need for quibbling over definitions.

The existence of voluntary non-capitalist systems destroys this argument

though past experience leads me to believe that that fact probably won't sink in

though past experience leads me to believe that that fact probably won't sink inIt's the social conditioning. It's bred into our bones that corporate capitalism & repressive demockery equals freedom & prosperity. To even suggest that isn't the case, is taboo bordering on heresy.

So if they happened to have the luck to be born into a rich family, or happened to be willing to step on others to get to the top, they earned it? :rolleyes:
Yes.

By not stepping on others, you've chosen something you value more. That's called freedom. Some of us like it.

The existence of voluntary non-capitalist systems destroys this argument
That's true. I have an aunt who lives in a commune. It's in an urban area, but the commune owns the land and the buildings and they all share pretty much everything. There's even a big communal kitchen where they have community meals.

Why would we act if the things were true unless we had faith that doing so was a good idea?
Because we have no other information on which to base actions. Either we go with these assumptions or we remain paralysed with indecision.
According to others; what if you didn't agree that they'd earned it?
I'm not sure. I suspect I'd flee the jurisdiction or fight against them (since such a scenario probably requires some sort of dictatorial regime).

The social system thus makes certain goods conditional on tasks that are not required morally and are not desired for their internal goods. The result is a reduction in freedom.

Yes, they do - and as with my earlier mention of informal exchange of labor, I see no reason to prohibit the occasional "incentives" arrangement. My problem is with a society dependent on incentives, a society whose economy is characterized by them. The result will always tend to be a lack of freedom.
Ignoring your moral arguments for the moment (we've already covered how they lack prescriptive force if you're not a moral realist), those goods probably wouldn't exist without the profit motive to act as an incentive to produce.

So, if you have satisfactory stack of goods A, and I offer you as an incentive supplementary stack of goods B, which you cannot acquire any other way, how is that a loss of freedom? Without me offering B, B doesn't exist. However, A is wholly sufficient on its own. You're happy with A.

So why can't I offer B to someone?
And I should clarify that by "incentives" I am refering exclusively to external rewards.
I don't think that's fair. Internal rewards can also function as incentives, and often do in a free market (like working for a charity, as I do).

not if you aren't using words in incoherent ways. which your idea that collectives aren't really collectives demonstrates quite clearly that you are.

OK, then they're not collectives, they're communes. But collectivism still is the opposite of individualism and individual freedom, instead focusing on the "group's" supposed rights. Hence, any collective necessarily ignores the rights of the individual because of its focus on the "group". A commune would not necessarily do so, if it allowed for individual disassociation. This is not incoherent at all. What IS incoherent is the idea that you can somehow emphasize the rights of the "group" over individuals, while simultaneously saying that you value the rights of the individual. This is a complete contradiction- only one can stand.

I'll grant you that, but only on the condition that you grant me that this use of "collectivism" is a useless, irrelevant term that has no bearing on the more libertarian left-wing ideologies.

No.

Yes, but since Greill does not wish to recognize this, why bother arguing over it?

He is arguing that the proposed alternatives to capitalism are "collectivist" and that "collectivism," because it cannot be voluntary, is inherently unfree. The existence of voluntary non-capitalist systems destroys this argument without any need for quibbling over definitions.

First of all, I never called your little communes collectivist, if you'd paid attention, nor did I forcefully oppose them. I said that these communes are individualist, the opposite of collectivist, because they allow for free association. However, because collectivism puts priority over the rights of "the group" over the rights of the individual, it cannot allow this same opportunity for individualism- hence its collectivism. So you really haven't proved anything against me.

Collectivism, in itself, is not a bad thing, if it is done in an egailitarian, non-hierarchal manner.

No. This is why I spurn democracy as a form of collectivism- collectivism isn't made better by having multiple masters (tyranny by majority) as opposed to a single one (Stalinism/Maoism). After all, people were executed in the Spanish communes for daring to use money. Collectivism is collectivism is collectivism.

What made me a Socialist?

Seeing rich bastards gloat on TV allday long about their profit margins. Disguisting!

I then read the communist manifesto, but I think the way of a true socialist state is by democratic centralism, nationalization, small businesses, free education, free healthcare, pay based on demand, "proletarians governing proletarians".

Anarchists may loathe my beliefs on the state, but that is fine, I think their beliefs are a bit farfetched. I also believe in a libertarian element in the mix, the right to free speech, legalization of drugs, and freedom to do as you wish as long as you don't infringe on the beliefs of others.

So you could say I'm a Social-Libertarian? hm. I guess I'm just my own thing. I think the Soviet Union collapsed because of many factors, but alot of their GDP went straight to the military because of the cold war.

Just recently Russia started to get to the same GDP power as the Soviet Union had in 1985.

Ignoring your moral arguments for the moment (we've already covered how they lack prescriptive force if you're not a moral realist), those goods probably wouldn't exist without the profit motive to act as an incentive to produce.

And if they didn't exist, I wouldn't miss them. Most of the time, it's only when they're already an aspect of the society that I actually desire to purchase them.

So, if you have satisfactory stack of goods A, and I offer you as an incentive supplementary stack of goods B, which you cannot acquire any other way, how is that a loss of freedom? Without me offering B, B doesn't exist. However, A is wholly sufficient on its own. You're happy with A.

So why can't I offer B to someone?

The exchange isn't so much the problem in and of itself as the ultimate consequences of such kinds of exchanges occurring regularly would be - the pressure, in order to prevent economic marginalization, for everyone to make these kinds of deals, whatever the consequences.

I don't think that's fair. Internal rewards can also function as incentives, and often do in a free market (like working for a charity, as I do).

The point is that internal rewards can and would be included. There is no deprivation of freedom involved.

OK, then they're not collectives, they're communes. But collectivism still is the opposite of individualism and individual freedom, instead focusing on the "group's" supposed rights. Hence, any collective necessarily ignores the rights of the individual because of its focus on the "group". A commune would not necessarily do so, if it allowed for individual disassociation. This is not incoherent at all. What IS incoherent is the idea that you can somehow emphasize the rights of the "group" over individuals, while simultaneously saying that you value the rights of the individual. This is a complete contradiction- only one can stand.

The "group" is an irrelevant category.

I am in favor of the rights of individuals not to be oppressed by other individuals, be it by direct force or by property ownership defended by force.

First of all, I never called your little communes collectivist, if you'd paid attention, nor did I forcefully oppose them. I said that these communes are individualist, the opposite of collectivist, because they allow for free association. However, because collectivism puts priority over the rights of "the group" over the rights of the individual, it cannot allow this same opportunity for individualism- hence its collectivism. So you really haven't proved anything against me.

Provide an example of this "collectivism." Does it mean anything more than "a society Greill disapproves of"?

collectivism isn't made better by having multiple masters

and thus you've adopted the most hardcore and extreme primmie position, and spurn all groups entirely, yes?

The "group" is an irrelevant category.

I am in favor of the rights of individuals not to be oppressed by other individuals, be it by direct force or by property ownership defended by force.

But how is property oppressive? It is simply the means by which someone perceives value, tries to gain it, maintain it, and keep it. There's nothing wrong with that, and finding things of value to the one person is necessary to live and be happy.

Provide an example of this "collectivism." Does it mean anything more than "a society Greill disapproves of"?

There's a Danish municipality that has relative independence, but works as a commune. However, it is entirely voluntary. Also, there are some people who live on farms in the US who live in a commune. This, also, is voluntary. I am not against any of these. And it's not collectivism- it's individualism, because it's voluntary contracting between people. However, it is a commune, but one I am not opposed to.

and thus you've adopted the most hardcore and extreme primmie position, and spun all groups entirely, yes?

Well, that's kind of obvious through my positioning of quotations around the word "group". I only believe in individuals- society does not exist outside of the relationships between people.

But how is property oppressive? It is simply the means by which someone perceives value, tries to gain it, maintain it, and keep it.

One could say exactly the same thing for, say, slavery.

Property is oppressive because it leads to dependence; it gives the owner power over anyone who might want to use the good.

There's nothing wrong with that, and finding things of value to the one person is necessary to live and be happy.

Absolutely, but "property" is not.

One could say exactly the same thing for, say, slavery.

No, because the labor of every person is automatically their own to use as they please. Slavery automatically gives the labor of someone to another person with no contract.

Property is oppressive because it leads to dependence; it gives the owner power over anyone who might want to use the good.

Why is interdependence bad? It allows for people to achieve their own individual desires through the fulfillment of other people's desires, and allows for specialization and development of the society to fulfill their needs with no coercion, but rather while serving each individual. Why should a trained shepherd and a trained orange grower need to both herd sheep and grow oranges, when one can do what he is best at- herd sheep- and the other can can do what he is best at- grow oranges-, and they can exchange with one another for their individual desires of oranges and sheeps as they both wish?

Absolutely, but "property" is not.

Uh, yeah it is. Property is essentially what one finds valuable and gathers to satisfy one's needs, from the caveman clubbing rabbits to keep from starving to the rocket scientist working for aeronautics to pay his mortgage.

No, because the labor of every person is automatically their own to use as they please. Slavery automatically gives the labor of someone to another person with no contract.

But that has nothing to do with the justification you presented for property rights.

I value somebody else's labor, so I claim it.

Why is interdependence bad?

It isn't. Unequal dependence (forced submission) is.

It allows for people to achieve their own individual desires through the fulfillment of other people's desires, and allows for specialization and development of the society to fulfill their needs with no coercion, but rather while serving each individual. Why should a trained shepherd and a trained orange grower need to both herd sheep and grow oranges, when one can do what he is best at- herd sheep- and the other can can do what he is best at- grow oranges-, and they can exchange with one another for their individual desires of oranges and sheeps as they both wish?

I'm familiar with the justification for the division of labor, but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

My concern is that both the shepherd and the orange grower choose of their own accord where and how they contribute their labor, and do not have that choice made for them by economic pressures. My concern is also that neither are denied a decent existence because of lack of access to resources.

Uh, yeah it is. Property is essentially what one finds valuable and gathers to satisfy one's needs, from the caveman clubbing rabbits to keep from starving to the rocket scientist working for aeronautics to pay his mortgage.

Unfortunately, property extends a whole lot further than either of those examples.

Two people just listed Hitler as their influences... :eek:
I also listed Eric Clapton

Imagine the psychological trauma that would cause the child. :D "You're dead to me." Assuming of course the mother doesn't abort it...
Yeah, it still has issues. But it is a tricky situation. Quite lame to tie an unwilling father down like that (even on the kids side), but then you shouldn't be poking around in holes if you are unwilling to fall in. However, the mother has a way out, why not the father too?

Collectivism necessarily is a focus on the "rights" of the so-called "group", which take precedence over the individual (hence the incessant whining about "greedy individuals" etc.) Unfortunately, this gives carte blanche for "the group" to do whatever they want with the individual so as to serve "the group" best. Unfortunately, "the group" does not exist- only individuals do. So this means that some individuals are forced to serve other individuals- hence, collectivism is no different from imprisonment and compulsory labor.


This isn't even vaguely true. Indeed, all it does is suggest you have made a decision, and are not going to allow something as important as YOUR opinion to be swayed by anything as 'irrelevent' as mere facts.

Collectivisim has no doctrine. There is no hard and fast model which must be true. The only thing that is required for a system to be accurately described as 'collective' or even 'collectivised', would be that individuals work or accrue collectively.

Thus, all your propoganda about people whinging over greedy individuals, compulsary labour, and groups 'forcing' individuals... represent nothing but propganda.

As it says in the good book:

Mac 5:5 "It is a tale... Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Anypne who has ever had a housemate, roommate, or family, can probably relate to how 'collectivisim' works in the real world. Does sharing a house make the housemate a slave to their other housemates? I suppose it COULD, with the wrong group of housemates - but that would be because some of the individuals involved are assholes, not because the model is flawed.

And, the housemate example answers the next question also... DOES collectivism equate to imprisonment or forced labour? No - obviously it doesn't. If housemate A discovers he doesn't like living in the collective, housemate A just leaves the house. maybe he finds a different collective, or maybe he goes it alone - it doesn't matter. What is important is that collectivism implies no automatic constraint or control.

And I think that's silly. I think we should all be aware of our assumptions, including things like "the physical world exists largely as I perceive it" and "physical laws persist over time".

There's a difference between acting as if these things are true and genuinely believing them to be true.

So, you are only playacting that you accept the ground as LITERALLY under your feet?

But how is property oppressive? It is simply the means by which someone perceives value, tries to gain it, maintain it, and keep it.

Just a scenario, by way of example:

Person A really likes food. He perceives value in it, tries to gain it, amaintain it and keep it.

Person B through Z are hungry. They die.

Just a scenario, by way of example:

Person A really likes food. He perceives value in it, tries to gain it, amaintain it and keep it.

Person B through Z are hungry. They die.

more food for person A! :D

more food for person A! :D

That's the problem - person A had the food already.

Oh - I see... You mean he EATS Persons B through Z.

:D

That's the problem - person A had the food already.

Oh - I see... You mean he EATS Persons B through Z.

:D

*nods*

:p

*nods*

:p

It is either really early for me, or really late... took me a while to kickstart the brain. :)

It is either really early for me, or really late... took me a while to kickstart the brain. :)

meh, I called in sick to work today, had a medical thing yesterday still not 100% for being responsible for toddlers, however my brain seems to be working just a ltitle quicker than usual this early in the morning.

meh, I called in sick to work today, had a medical thing yesterday still not 100% for being responsible for toddlers, however my brain seems to be working just a ltitle quicker than usual this early in the morning.

I might have said before, I'm on the graveyard shift... I'm normally either on my way home from work about now... or it's one of the days between my shifts and I'd still be asleep. Whichever way - my brain is still upside down. :D

Because we have no other information on which to base actions. Either we go with these assumptions or we remain paralysed with indecision.Why would we act at all unless we had faith that acting was better than indecision?

I'm not sure. I suspect I'd flee the jurisdiction or fight against them (since such a scenario probably requires some sort of dictatorial regime).You do realize that this could apply to those of us on the left who don't feel that capitalists earn their money, correct?

Influences: Schools of thought varying from the left to the right.

Ideology: Cross between Monarchy, National Socialism (Not nazism as you know it) and Socialism.

Economy.
The deficit is a major problem, eliminating the deficit is the first priority, When a sizable surplus is achieved taxes may be lowered due to the revenue of intrest from the surplus. Ideally the surplus will eventually grow so that the intrest can cover all expenses of the government.
Minimum wage.
Working age lowered to 15 so long as school is attended.
School is not comulsory if the child achieves a certain level of prosperity within a career.
The state shall operate with a company of its own, which shall traditionally (but not exclusively) have the prime minister as CEO of the company, the company will pay taxes to the government and no funds other than this will be interchanged between the two.
The companies goal is to take over as many other companies as possible and still turn a profit, the eventual goal being a 1 company society.

Civil rights.
Drugs allowed from the age of 16, harder drugs from 18.
Cigarettes allowed from the age of 14.
Alcohol. Below 3% no age limit. 3%-30% is allowed by 16 year olds and over.
30%+ is allowed by 18 year olds.
ID is compulsory for ALL sales as alcohol will be banned for certain peoples who cause problems when under the influence of alcohol.
Euthanasia legal.
Child custody truly neutral, instead of tending toward the mothers.
Abortion is legal, but only with the consent of the father (if the father is a presence in the mothers life and lives with her and has done so for over a year.) It shall be extremely discouraged and adoption will be encouraged with a small tax break.

Security.
The police beurocracy shall be cut short, police granted more leniency in capturing subjects.

NHS.
Compulsory organ donation upon death for anyone who uses its services.
Compulsory blood donation once a year. (Unless side effects will occur)
Compulsory Immunisation against diseases (unless side effects will occur)


Prisons.
Low level criminals forced to do manual labour and attend rehab.
Mid level criminals forced to do manual labour and attend rehab.
High level criminals forced through constant rehab.

The vote.
2 votes for 16-18 year olds.
3 votes for 18+ year olds.
Ex-Cons granted 1 vote.


Military.
Reintroduction of the regimental system.
The military will attend training and receive pay from the government, as well as holding down manual labour jobs for the government in times of peace.

Foreign Policy.
If we dont like you, your screwed.
Invasion is one step closer to a unified earth :D
(i am aware of the controversy of several of my policies, but screw you.)

You do realize that this could apply to those of us on the left who don't feel that capitalists earn their money, correct?
Ideally, there would be many communities of many forms people could go to without restriction of movement. That way, all those who cannot stand capitalism can exit it and stop bothering those who do - and vice versa. No more of this idiotic forced integration or one-world socioeconomic model. If capitalist societies then fail, so be it. If they are the most popular, again, so be it.

But that has nothing to do with the justification you presented for property rights.

I value somebody else's labor, so I claim it.

Except that land is an inanimate object. Humans are free-willing beings.

Ideally, there would be many communities of many forms people could go to without restriction of movement. That way, all those who cannot stand capitalism can exit it and stop bothering those who do - and vice versa. No more of this idiotic forced integration or one-world socioeconomic model. If capitalist societies then fail, so be it. If they are the most popular, again, so be it.
make a new thread

make a new thread
Why? There is no reason.

Except that land is an inanimate object. Humans are free-willing beings.

As I said before, this distinction has nothing to do with Greill's justification for property rights.

Influence: Locke, Mises, Austrian School of Economics


Abortion: No. All effort should be made to make sure that both mother and child survive.



But what if the fetus has horrible deformations, that would likely lead to it's early death and overall suffering... Or what if the mother got pregnant through rape?

Influences: a bunch of places/people

Economy: very little regulation, except for moral issues like child labor and maybe some anti-monopoly legislation, but that's the responsibility of the people: "If you don't like Walmart, stop shopping there!"

Religion: theocracy with freedom of religion so far as it does not interfere with the laws of the state

Government: Christian republican (system, not party) theocracy very close to Presbyterian form of government

Taxes: to the military and to paying for the few necessary civil servants and services

Drugs: ignoring prescription drugs, alcohol and caffine only with emphasis on responsible use

Gay rights: No more/fewer rights than two unmarried wo/men living together

Abortion: illegal in all instances

Child laws: laws against abuse only allowing children to be taken from abusive parents while spanking (not beating) encouraged as a method of discipline

Immigration: legal process same as now, illegal immigrants sent back unless they come from select nations which are known to violate human rights

But that has nothing to do with the justification you presented for property rights.

I value somebody else's labor, so I claim it.

But to claim it, since someone else already has it, you have to give something to him that he values more than his labor. That allows for both parties to better achieve their individual desires.

It isn't. Unequal dependence (forced submission) is.

But that doesn't happen in mutually beneficial exchange, at least not through any objective measure, so we can discard that.

I'm familiar with the justification for the division of labor, but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

My concern is that both the shepherd and the orange grower choose of their own accord where and how they contribute their labor, and do not have that choice made for them by economic pressures. My concern is also that neither are denied a decent existence because of lack of access to resources.

The division of labor necessarily requires interdependence, but allows for better living standards for all involved, where independence would leave people dead and starving.

And the idea that the shepherd and orange grower are free of economic pressures is ridiculous. One doesn't have oranges, and the other does not sheep. Both want them for their needs, and thus trade for them. From the (incorrect) collectivist standpoint, they are forced by their wants into this trade. But are they really worse off for doing it?

Unfortunately, property extends a whole lot further than either of those examples.

Er, no, sorry, it doesn't.

This isn't even vaguely true. Indeed, all it does is suggest you have made a decision, and are not going to allow something as important as YOUR opinion to be swayed by anything as 'irrelevent' as mere facts.

No, I'm quite well based in the facts. The only problem is that my facts do not derive from communist fantasy land, which you seem to see as unacceptable.

Collectivisim has no doctrine. There is no hard and fast model which must be true. The only thing that is required for a system to be accurately described as 'collective' or even 'collectivised', would be that individuals work or accrue collectively.

Once more, no. Collectivism necessarily ignores the rights of the individual for the rights of "the group", and is therefore the opposite of individualism. There is no collective, only individuals.

Thus, all your propoganda about people whinging over greedy individuals, compulsary labour, and groups 'forcing' individuals... represent nothing but propganda.

As it says in the good book:

Mac 5:5 "It is a tale... Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Nice fluff, but utterly irrelevant.

Anypne who has ever had a housemate, roommate, or family, can probably relate to how 'collectivisim' works in the real world. Does sharing a house make the housemate a slave to their other housemates? I suppose it COULD, with the wrong group of housemates - but that would be because some of the individuals involved are assholes, not because the model is flawed.

My family is not a collective- it is a number of individuals who are related. My apartment is not a collective- it is a number of individuals living with one another. These are all through individual relationships, with no collective whatsoever.

And, the housemate example answers the next question also... DOES collectivism equate to imprisonment or forced labour? No - obviously it doesn't. If housemate A discovers he doesn't like living in the collective, housemate A just leaves the house. maybe he finds a different collective, or maybe he goes it alone - it doesn't matter. What is important is that collectivism implies no automatic constraint or control.

Of course, since there's no collectivism in this situation, but rather individual relationships, there is no imprisonment or forced labor, thus making this point irrelevant as well.

Just a scenario, by way of example:

Person A really likes food. He perceives value in it, tries to gain it, amaintain it and keep it.

Person B through Z are hungry. They die.

Am I to assume that B-Z see no value in food? (Which is possible- value is subjective) If so, then this does nothing to disprove property rights. If not, I really have to wonder how in the world it is possible that B-Z are not able to gain food if they have the slightest ability to produce something valuable, even indirectly, for food growers.

And if they didn't exist, I wouldn't miss them. Most of the time, it's only when they're already an aspect of the society that I actually desire to purchase them.
So your desires are based on what other people possess? I know Marx predicted that, but that doesn't make it any less crazy.

Suppose you have set of goods A, and you're perfectly content with set of goods A. I also have set of goods A, but then I go out and acquire set of goods B to supplement set A, which I deemed inadequate.

You still have set of goods A. Nothing about set of goods A has changed, and thus you should remain perfectly content to have set of goods A. That I have set of goods B in addition to A affects you not at all.

This is also the basis of my argument against wage equity.

Ideally, there would be many communities of many forms people could go to without restriction of movement. That way, all those who cannot stand capitalism can exit it and stop bothering those who do - and vice versa. No more of this idiotic forced integration or one-world socioeconomic model. If capitalist societies then fail, so be it. If they are the most popular, again, so be it.Yes, ideally, however I was simply giving an argument for why things should be allowed to progress to this point. I know you agree with secession rights, I'm not sure if Llewdor does. :)

Why would we act at all unless we had faith that acting was better than indecision?
In the complete absence of information, almost anything would be sufficient to push us in one direction or another. Like boredom.
You do realize that this could apply to those of us on the left who don't feel that capitalists earn their money, correct?
Sure.
I know you agree with secession rights, I'm not sure if Llewdor does. :)
Of course. I've been a separatist for years.

I'm not saying you can't have your society. I'm saying I think it will suck.

No, I'm quite well based in the facts. The only problem is that my facts do not derive from communist fantasy land, which you seem to see as unacceptable.


The only problem is, your 'facts' are figments of your own imagination, not even vaguely related to anything close to reality.

It's your strawman scenario - knock yourself out with it. Just don't expect anyone to connect it to anything mirroring the 'real world'.


Once more, no. Collectivism necessarily ignores the rights of the individual for the rights of "the group", and is therefore the opposite of individualism. There is no collective, only individuals.


Once again - this is patently not true. Not only are there very real 'collectives' of many kinds, but collectivism never equates to loss of liberty. I think you are confusing the fact that some dictatorial regimes have espoused forms of collectivism AND have restricted liberty... with the (obviously nonsensical) idea that collectivism is somehow intrinsically designed to make people less free.


Nice fluff, but utterly irrelevant.


Not my fluff, actually. But I'll pass along your compliments.

Utterly irrelevent from YOUR point of view, perhaps. To my thinking, seeing that your argument is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, it seems curiously appropriate.


My family is not a collective- it is a number of individuals who are related. My apartment is not a collective- it is a number of individuals living with one another. These are all through individual relationships, with no collective whatsoever.


Maybe you grew up in a different environment. In my upbringing, we shared responsibilities, etc... even things as trivial as washing the dishes. When I was at University, we split the bills... we also shared shopping duties, and cooking duties.

I'm sorry I know too little about your (apparently insular) hsitory to comment.


Of course, since there's no collectivism in this situation, but rather individual relationships, there is no imprisonment or forced labor, thus making this point irrelevant as well.


Your strawmen. You don't like them, don't introduce them.


Am I to assume that B-Z see no value in food? (Which is possible- value is subjective) If so, then this does nothing to disprove property rights. If not, I really have to wonder how in the world it is possible that B-Z are not able to gain food if they have the slightest ability to produce something valuable, even indirectly, for food growers.

I guess you've heard of 'reality', yes? With it's curiously liberal bias, I can understand why you might not like it, but you should at least visit it.

Influences: a bunch of places/people

Economy: very little regulation, except for moral issues like child labor and maybe some anti-monopoly legislation, but that's the responsibility of the people: "If you don't like Walmart, stop shopping there!"

You're a capitalist. ugh. I'd like to close Walmart down, give it back to the Proletarians!

Religion: theocracy with freedom of religion so far as it does not interfere with the laws of the state

Theocracy? LOL. Ugh. Separation of church and state is much much better, religion should be left to the individual decide.

Government: Christian republican (system, not party) theocracy very close to Presbyterian form of government

Ugh. Democratic Centralism is the way to go ;) "proletarians serving proletarians"

Taxes: to the military and to paying for the few necessary civil servants and services

I'm against taxes altogether, but maybe to foreignors, foreign nations ha.

Drugs: ignoring prescription drugs, alcohol and caffine only with emphasis on responsible use

Legalization.

Gay rights: No more/fewer rights than two unmarried wo/men living together

Hm. Religious matter? Why would the government recognize marriages anyway? Personal matter.

Abortion: illegal in all instances

OK. Depends on demand for more babies, the government will shift its views based on that.

Child laws: laws against abuse only allowing children to be taken from abusive parents while spanking (not beating) encouraged as a method of discipline

If the child has no home, the child will be adopted by the government.

A) Will have a place to stay with other kids, unless adopted, or when they become of age.
B) Free education
C) Free healthcare
D) Free basic housing at adulthood

Immigration: legal process same as now, illegal immigrants sent back unless they come from select nations which are known to violate human rights

Immigration based on demand, every citizen will have an id, perhaps all currency will be through "credit", a credit card type of deal. Like if a person gets paid, it will be on the card, no cash currency, that's an option. Perhaps an "identity card" with all kinds of features...

So immigration depending on national demand, otherwise, the borders shall remained closed, guarded by military.

Once more, no. Collectivism necessarily ignores the rights of the individual for the rights of "the group", and is therefore the opposite of individualism. There is no collective, only individuals.

interestingly, you've just argued yourself into a bit of a corner, as now you are forced to accept that all of your commie opponents here are in fact just as much 'individualists' as yourself.

So your desires are based on what other people possess? I know Marx predicted that, but that doesn't make it any less crazy.

Mine, in particular? Incidentally, no; a whole lot less than most people I know, anyway.

But there are good reasons for this truth beyond simple jealousy.

Suppose you have set of goods A, and you're perfectly content with set of goods A. I also have set of goods A, but then I go out and acquire set of goods B to supplement set A, which I deemed inadequate.

You still have set of goods A. Nothing about set of goods A has changed, and thus you should remain perfectly content to have set of goods A. That I have set of goods B in addition to A affects you not at all.

No. I have the same material things, but that does not mean that I have the same set of goods.

The utility of my property is most definitely altered by the number and quality of the material thingss owned by others, and perhaps more importantly, indirectly by the way societies change in accordance with economic development.

This is also the basis of my argument against wage equity.

It is irrelevant to plenty of arguments for wage equity.

So your desires are based on what other people possess? I know Marx predicted that, but that doesn't make it any less crazy.

doesn't take marx to predict that at all. a casual look across cultures or the same culture through time will say it clearly enough for anyone. it's just a true general statement about humans. the fact that not 'keeping up' has additional social and political consequences just adds to the situation.

So your desires are based on what other people possess? I interpreted his comment to say that if something doesn't exist, people wouldn't want it, with few exceptions. Since it doesn't exist, and they don't want it, they don't bemoan its lack of existence or the fact that they don't have it.

Gay rights: No more/fewer rights than two unmarried wo/men living together

Abortion: illegal in all instances


wow someone with a view to me.

You're a capitalist. ugh. I'd like to close Walmart down, give it back to the Proletarians!

For the record, I hate Walmart. I just don't feel that the government should have a say in how it conducts its affairs (within reason). The people should be willing to pay a little more, and be a little more inconvenienced and shop at the mom and pop stores. If everyone did that, the mom and pop stores would be getting more money, so their costs would be more competitive, the owners would be closer to the "common man" so ethical business practices would be more likely, and Walmart would go out of business.

So, what's your personal politics?

Influence(s): Parents (very conservative), best friend's parents (very liberal), and many many others.

Economy: Free market, with limitations to prevent extortion and inhumane practices. People tend to be much more motivated if they get the results of thier labor. Ideally, people unable to work would be cared for by others directly, but practically, it may have to be a government thing. People who are unwilling to work, however, if they won't work, they won't eat. Their fault. They'll work soon enough.

Religion: Personally, I am a Christian. I do not believe that the government should force a religion on people a la europe a few hundred years ago. A forced faith is no faith at all. But I think the government would do well to make laws in a moral manner.

Government: Doesn't really matter too much, so long as it is a benevolent and moral one. Kings/Queens? Eh, whatever. Grand dictator. Fine, so long as there's a non-bloody way to get rid of them when it goes to their heads, and they know they can be kicked out. Ideally, perhaps a direct democracy approach, however that is highly impractical and I don't think would ever work, except in a very small country. Perhaps in the US we could do it on a state level, and then have representatives for more national levels.

Tax Money: Education, Law Enforcement and Military are big. Transportation is mandatory, a la Rome. (Privatizing that would create problems, I think.) But I'm not actually a fan of the Robin Hood approach to government spending.

Drugs: Either illegal or controlled. Otherwise the government would be responsible for the ruin of many more lives than already are. Drugs are too addicting, and mind-altering. People's minds and lives are a terrible thing to waste - or to encourage them to waste.

Gay Rights: Undecided... I know it's a big one, but here is my paradox: In my ideal world, nobody would be gay, and it would be socially unacceptable, to the point where legeslation on it would be superfluous. However, it's not my ideal world we live in - and in THIS world, I think gay unions, with all the legal benefits thereof are the solution, without calling it "marriage", simply becuase I disapprove of redefining words for the sake of political correctness. Just because they're having sex doesn't make them married. Nobody's saying "living together" opposite sex partners should have legal benefits.

Abortion: Is killing the kid at the whim of the parents. I would have government support for the mother, food and housing where she could stay during her pregnancy, if she need it, and to without penalty give the child up for adoption. And I would have tax benefits, and government sponsored adoption, to keep these kids out of the foster care system for the rest of thier lives. Why pay for them to be in a transitory place where they're never sure where they stand when you could pay people who adopt them instead, and give them what they need. With the same sorts of requirements on adoptive parents as there are now.

Child Laws: Adoption and children are encouraged by government tax breaks and support. Education is subsudized, but not only at government sponsored schools. Each child gets a certain ammount, to go to whoever is teaching them... but schools must be certified to get the money, or in the case of homeschooling, the children must be interviewed and reviewed to prove eligability of education. I think that would make for many more, smaller schools, with better paid teachers, and more options of education style and content. Children are strictly protected from all sorts of abuse. (Spanking is legal, but anything which causes brusing or bleeding is considered abuse, as is anything sexual in nature.)

Immigration: Immigration is open to anyone who has no criminal background (subject to review and/or exceptions) and who wants to come in, learn the language and culture, and become a contributing american. We are a melting pot, and those get very boring without more things to mix in. They need to work, or have somone who can support them. (Stay at home parents merely need a spouse to work, not them.) If they cannot contribute or will not work, they must go home. Also, anyone coming in illegally is deported immediately, and is not welcome back on any grounds. Join us, or not... but not half way between.

Religion: theocracy with freedom of religion so far as it does not interfere with the laws of the state

Government: Christian republican (system, not party) theocracy very close to Presbyterian form of government


Theocracy only works when God is cooperating, and said do it. In fact, it didn't work even then. What makes you think it would work now, in a probably even more hardened and pagan world?

Actually a presbyterian form of government is really fairly much a representative democracy - except with a view to the spiritual. Basically all you want is everyone to be Christians (an admirable but unrealistic sentiment, imo) and to thus elect those other Christian called by God to be in government.

Furthermore, if you look at how Paul etc. address the government in the bible, it never suggests that Christians set up their own nation. Or take over the existing governments. Or anything of the sort. If you can come up with somewhere that say do that, I'll eat my shorts.

Mine, in particular? Incidentally, no; a whole lot less than most people I know, anyway.

But there are good reasons for this truth beyond simple jealousy.
Care to enlighten me?
No. I have the same material things, but that does not mean that I have the same set of goods.

The utility of my property is most definitely altered by the number and quality of the material thingss owned by others, and perhaps more importantly, indirectly by the way societies change in accordance with economic development.
For the purposes of exchange their utility changes, but not with regard to your personal use of the things. Realistically, if you have a life with which you are happy, and then discover that someone else has a vastly different life, nothing about your life has changed, and thus there's no reason for you to stop being happy with it.
It is irrelevant to plenty of arguments for wage equity.
The reasoning there was much like my previous paragragh. The extent to which you are happy with your wages should not be affected by the wages of another, even he's doing the same job.
doesn't take marx to predict that at all. a casual look across cultures or the same culture through time will say it clearly enough for anyone. it's just a true general statement about humans. the fact that not 'keeping up' has additional social and political consequences just adds to the situation.
But that doesn't make it rational behaviour.

If the people can't be taught to behave rationally, I find I'm not terribly concerned with their welfare.
I interpreted his comment to say that if something doesn't exist, people wouldn't want it, with few exceptions. Since it doesn't exist, and they don't want it, they don't bemoan its lack of existence or the fact that they don't have it.
Because no one ever invents new things...

I don't see why the appearance of other goods should affect how happy you are with the ones you have. Either they're adequate or they're not. That doesn't change.

Because no one ever invents new things...Of course they do, but most of those things are meant to create demands, as opposed to meeting already existing demands.

I don't see why the appearance of other goods should affect how happy you are with the ones you have. Either they're adequate or they're not. That doesn't change.The new goods could be something that is better than merely adequate.

But that doesn't make it rational behaviour.

If the people can't be taught to behave rationally, I find I'm not terribly concerned with their welfare.

let's assume it is irrational. i guarantee that i could get you personally to do irrational things with only the slightest effort. it's just sort of built in to our natures from several million years living in smallish groups on the savanna.

you have to work with what you've got.

of course, since there are social consequences beyond merely feeling jealousy, it is not at all irrational.

let's assume it is irrational. i guarantee that i could get you personally to do irrational things with only the slightest effort.
I highly doubt that, but let's assume it's true.

So what? That I behave irrationally is not evidence that irrational behaviour is any more acceptable. It might make me a big hypocrite, but hypocracy doesn't invalidate by positions.
of course, since there are social consequences beyond merely feeling jealousy, it is not at all irrational.
Leftists often refer to "social consequences" or "social pressure". I have no idea what you're talking about.

I highly doubt that

have you ever taken an psychology course? it's actually amazing how easy it is to get people to pick answers that they know are wrong, or to remain sitting in a room filling with smoke or a whole host of other irrational behaviors.

So what? That I behave irrationally is not evidence that irrational behaviour is any more acceptable. It might make me a big hypocrite, but hypocracy doesn't invalidate by positions.

if what you demand cannot be accomplished, then what you demand is stupid and should not hold any weight at all.

Leftists often refer to "social consequences" or "social pressure". I have no idea what you're talking about.

you almost certainly do so. all non-broken humans feel social pressures of various kinds, because our minds evolved to work in group settings. people that don't feel such are sociopaths.

in this particular case there is actually a big objective consequence, which is loss of power and standing within society. something which always leads to those who hold power exploiting those who don't, and therefore leads to further loss of power and standing. keep up or be left behind and looked on with contempt and disgust.

Care to enlighten me?

A car is far more necessary in a society where ninety-five percent of people own cars than it is in a society where only five percent do, because the expectation of society is that one owns a car, and other people make decisions accordingly.

Buying goods, finding a home, attaining a reachable place of employment, will all be far more difficult without a car in such a society than they would be without a car in a society where almost everyone else was bereft as well.

For the purposes of exchange their utility changes, but not with regard to your personal use of the things.

Not if your "personal use" of them has a social character - say, you use them to impress, or you use them to communicate with others who have them, or you bought them originally because you had borrowed someone else's and couldn't live without it.

Realistically, if you have a life with which you are happy, and then discover that someone else has a vastly different life, nothing about your life has changed, and thus there's no reason for you to stop being happy with it.

Only our ways of life are very much connected to the society in which we live.

The reasoning there was much like my previous paragragh. The extent to which you are happy with your wages should not be affected by the wages of another, even he's doing the same job.

But the maximization of happiness is not the same thing as the maintenance of happiness.

The new goods could be something that is better than merely adequate.
This (whole discussion) neglects something -- that almost all new goods that start out as a luxury item eventually become mass-produced. An example? The Playstation 2 is a simple one. It begins at the somewhat high price of, say, £200, climbs down to £130 within a few years, £100 a bit later, and eventually sells for £70. Some goods, such as diamonds, will always remain luxury items (even though they may be replicated), but these items tend to be status symbols more than anything else.

To be honest, I will not envy someone who owns a private jet when I can simply pay £50 for a flight myself.

For the record, I hate Walmart. I just don't feel that the government should have a say in how it conducts its affairs (within reason). The people should be willing to pay a little more, and be a little more inconvenienced and shop at the mom and pop stores. If everyone did that, the mom and pop stores would be getting more money, so their costs would be more competitive, the owners would be closer to the "common man" so ethical business practices would be more likely, and Walmart would go out of business.

I support small businesses where the owner actually carries his or hers own weight, which is a rarity these days in capitalist societies.

have you ever taken an psychology course? it's actually amazing how easy it is to get people to pick answers that they know are wrong, or to remain sitting in a room filling with smoke or a whole host of other irrational behaviors.
Most people aren't rational. That's not news.
you almost certainly do so. all non-broken humans feel social pressures of various kinds, because our minds evolved to work in group settings. people that don't feel such are sociopaths.
I didn't say I didn't feel them - I said I didn't understand what you were talking about. What social pressures? How do they influence your behaviour? Why do they influence your behaviour?

Furthermore, reason can overcome those responses. We are not mindless animals.

A car is far more necessary in a society where ninety-five percent of people own cars than it is in a society where only five percent do, because the expectation of society is that one owns a car, and other people make decisions accordingly.
That's hardly crippling. I've never owned a car because I never saw the benefit in owning a car. Most people have cars, but you can design your life around not having one.

The only real problem is that you can't do all the things people with cars can do, but that's not much of a hardship.
Not if your "personal use" of them has a social character - say, you use them to impress, or you use them to communicate with others who have them, or you bought them originally because you had borrowed someone else's and couldn't live without it.
If you're using your goods to impress people, I suddenly really don't care if they work for you. The opinions of others need not impact your happiness.
Only our ways of life are very much connected to the society in which we live.
By choice.
But the maximization of happiness is not the same thing as the maintenance of happiness.
Now that's telling. If the greatest happiness achievable in the society is within reach for everyone, you're okay with that. Even if I could make everyone happier still, but the pinnacle would now be out of reach for some people.

Gauging your happiness or success against others doesn't make any sense. Whether you're happy is an internal feature. Whether other people are happier than you doesn't make you more or less happy.

The only real problem is that you can't do all the things people with cars can do, but that's not much of a hardship.


It is if you must travel in order to work...

Well, compared to me, you're most likely a communist.
Compared to you, who isn't?

Influence(s): Alexander Hamilton, Jesus Christ, John Calvin, Milton Friedman, Napoleon Bonaparte, Niccolo Machiavelli, Otto von Bismarck, Ronald Reagan

Economy: Get yer gov'nmunt off mah monah! :p :D

Well, really, I don't all-out hate state roads, or the USPS. I just prefer that government programmes try to not go billions of dollars in the red and not do a damn thing to try and get out of it.
It's sad that you put property obsessions over helping other people.

I support small businesses where the owner actually carries his or hers own weight, which is a rarity these days in capitalist societies.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It is if you must travel in order to work...
I'd assume he'd prefer owning a car then, unless alternative means of transport were available.

Compared to you, who isn't?
Me.


It's sad that you put property obsessions over helping other people.
You should realize your moral views do not necessarily correspond with his. It is sort of like a Priest feeling "sad" for me, say, hypothetically, because I don't believe in God.

Me.
True, compared to Greill you're merely a Keynesian.

You should realize your moral views do not necessarily correspond with his. It is sort of like a Priest feeling "sad" for me, say, hypothetically, because I don't believe in God.
You gave up God??? I was really hoping you'd give up money-worship. :(

I know that my moral views may not be identical to Derscon's but I thought as Christians we would have more moral overlap.

It is if you must travel in order to work...
But must you? Is there no way around that?

I suspect the circumstances where that is true are extremely limited.

True, compared to Greill you're merely a Keynesian.
Nah, I'd say more of a Hayekian. It's compared to BAAWAKnights that I suppose I'm a Keynesian. :(


You gave up God??? I was really hoping you'd give up money-worship. :(
No, I haven't given up belief in a God, and I never will. And I don't worship money... It's far too fleeting for any such purpose -- I see it as nothing more than a means to an end.

I know that my moral views may not be identical to Derscon's but I thought as Christians we would have more moral overlap.
I'm afraid I'm too much of an egoist for that (not in the commonsense meaning of selfish though). While I do admire Christ, and I do admire voluntary eleemosyne, it doesn't characterize me, whose views prima facie could even said to be closer to those of LeVay... Ultimately I am a Deist, though I have a liking for certain aspects of Lutheranism (and for the historical/ritual aspects of Catholicism).

This (whole discussion) neglects something -- that almost all new goods that start out as a luxury item eventually become mass-produced. An example? The Playstation 2 is a simple one. It begins at the somewhat high price of, say, £200, climbs down to £130 within a few years, £100 a bit later, and eventually sells for £70. Certainly, usually this is because these companies are putting out other luxury items and want people to buy them, too.

Some goods, such as diamonds, will always remain luxury items (even though they may be replicated), but these items tend to be status symbols more than anything else. True. I think part of the reasons for this is that diamonds are a natural resource.

To be honest, I will not envy someone who owns a private jet when I can simply pay £50 for a flight myself.I will, they don't have to go through airport security.

But must you? Is there no way around that?

I suspect the circumstances where that is true are extremely limited.

I don't know.... I live 12 miles from the place I work, which would be an almost impossible journey without a car - given the terrain and weather where I live.

Could I work from home? Possibly - although I live remotely enough that I haven't even always had access to the internet here. Perhaps I could make wicker furniture or something... but then , once again, we reach that 'nowhere nearby' problem... who is going to buy furniture from a tiny little house off the beaten track?

I didn't have a car when I lived in a city... but then, not everyone DOES live in cities.

Some goods, such as diamonds, will always remain luxury items (even though they may be replicated), but these items tend to be status symbols more than anything else.


Very few diamonds are luxury items... most are no more 'luxurious' than sandpaper.

Among those that are luxury items, they are only 'luxury' items because the market is so tightly controlled to keep prices artificially high.

Influences: the Hard working Middle Class of America.

Economy: No more minimum wage hikes. Welfare limitations and incentives to get a job. If you don't get a job you will be limited.

Religion: Freedom of Religion around the board to include even the public servants. They have the same right to express their views as everybody else.

Government: Small Government run by the People and For the People. No more special interests and lobbyists. American Government Rocks.

Tax Money: Tax cuts for the hard working middle class. Increased tax for the wealthy. Extra funding for Law & Order, Education, and Healthcare are the most important. Oh and the construction of roads in a timely manner (not at the last minute or when it's too late.)

Drugs: Legalized marijuana. All others remain illegal and strictly enforced.

Gay Rights: They're people too. However, I do believe that Marriage is the sacred mark between a man and a woman. Give them the same rights, only under Civil Unions not Marriage.

Abortion: I am mostly against Abortion. I feel people need to take responsiblity for their actions and live with the consequences. It would be okay if the mother's life was in grave danger. Partial birth abortion would be completely banned with the exception of if the mother's life was endangered of being lost. Rape victims would have the right to choose. Irresponsibility....would have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I don't know.... I live 12 miles from the place I work, which would be an almost impossible journey without a car - given the terrain and weather where I live.

Could I work from home? Possibly - although I live remotely enough that I haven't even always had access to the internet here. Perhaps I could make wicker furniture or something... but then , once again, we reach that 'nowhere nearby' problem... who is going to buy furniture from a tiny little house off the beaten track?

I didn't have a car when I lived in a city... but then, not everyone DOES live in cities.
But most people do. Isn't it one of the major selling points of socialism that it benefits a wider swath of the populace? That it benefits the majority (and possibly only the majority)?

You also don't have to live where you do. All else being equal, I'd rather live somewhere different from where I do. But all else isn't equal, so I don't get to make decisions like that - given the rest of my life at present this place of residence serves me well, even if I would prefer it be otherwise.

Certainly, usually this is because these companies are putting out other luxury items and want people to buy them, too.
Exactly. It's based on trends ultimately. A luxury item usually remains one for a brief time (an incentive for its creation and a marker of its success; subsequently, higher profits can be attained by mass-consumption), then it becomes all the more common, and eventually it's a normal good. In other words, these goods are never truly unattainable -- they just go through an initial "fad" phase. In the case that these goods become necessities (e.g. like cars did), all consumers benefit eventually. For instance, there is now talk of making space travel universally available (some British billionaire envisions this anyway); to what extent this will become a necessity, I don't know. However, it will transform a de facto luxury good into a common one. Before this, hybrid flying cars are set to be the next luxury-to-common good for release.

For those goods (e.g. designer clothing) that are items of conspicuous consumption until they fall out of fashion, I am not interested. They weren't, aren't and will never be necessities. No one is worse off without them, therefore any sentiments of envy are irrelevant in their case. And then there are others, like a Mercedes-Benz car -- a nice item for showing off, but there are cheaper alternatives. If one craves these items so badly, they can save up for them, although I can think of better ways of spending money.

True. I think part of the reasons for this is that diamonds are a natural resource.
Definitely. Their rarity makes them special. However, if diamonds were to fall significantly in price, which conspicuous consumer would see them as special?

I will, they don't have to go through airport security.
Meh, it's a small bother for me. Obviously I'd love a private jet, but to be honest I do not feel deprived in the least by using mass air-travel as the cheaper alternative.

Very few diamonds are luxury items... most are no more 'luxurious' than sandpaper.

Among those that are luxury items, they are only 'luxury' items because the market is so tightly controlled to keep prices artificially high.
That is my point. They are luxury goods because of their price. They are the type of luxury good that is worth what it is only because it's so overpriced, ie an item of conspicuous consumption.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

A farmer that actually farms.

A farmer that actually farms.

Oh well, of course.

But most people do. Isn't it one of the major selling points of socialism that it benefits a wider swath of the populace? That it benefits the majority (and possibly only the majority)?


Socialism? Huh? Not sure how that connects with transporting people to and from work...

As for whether 'most people' live in cities... probably - but then, if we were talking about some parts of the country, that might not be so - are you saying those people don't matter?


You also don't have to live where you do. All else being equal, I'd rather live somewhere different from where I do. But all else isn't equal, so I don't get to make decisions like that - given the rest of my life at present this place of residence serves me well, even if I would prefer it be otherwise.

Actually - for family reasons, because of the responsibilities I have - I can't just up and relocate... and I doubt I'm alone in this. So - I have to do what is available locally.

Socialism? Huh? Not sure how that connects with transporting people to and from work...
Cars came up as something that becomes more necessary based on how many other people have them in my debate with Soheran. I thought you were picking up where she left off.
As for whether 'most people' live in cities... probably - but then, if we were talking about some parts of the country, that might not be so - are you saying those people don't matter?
Well, that's what I was suggesting Soheran would do, yes.
Actually - for family reasons, because of the responsibilities I have - I can't just up and relocate... and I doubt I'm alone in this. So - I have to do what is available locally.
Responsibilities you choose to uphold. You're not being compelled.

Well, obviously since we are on this site, many of us like to prescribe to a particular ideology's or political party/group's name, but honestly, do you agree, word-for-word, with the beleifs of the entire political theory? Probably not. I'm sure you might dissent slightly from some of the beleifs of your particular version of what the world requires politically.

So, what's your personal politics?

Influence(s): Mahatma Ghandi, Vladmir Lenin, Dutch and Scandinavian socialism and Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Economy: Ideally, state-owned. However, whatever amount of work you put in will the amount of pay you receive back for your effort.There's a standard wage level, but none of this 'collective' payments, where there's no incentive to work because of a few bad apples that bring down the whole. Work is offered to anyone who is qualified and willing to do so. If you are unemployed through reasons that you were not directly responsible for, you will be taken of by the goverment welfare until you are able to find a job, which the government will try and assist you in doing so. If you do not accept the new job offer, you will be given a maximum of 3 months(depending on your circumstances) to find a job.

Religion: Ideally, secular to the point that it does not matter. There will be no government sponsored religion nor will there be a forceful removal of indiviusual citizens right to do what they want within any governmentally recognised religon's standard rituals. No religion will be supressed. No one can insult any religion's beleifs, prophets,etc. Religions that are deemed to be cults (Scientology, Satanism, any religious fundementalism,etc.) are banned. Cults are determined to be so if they cause supported harm to the government or its citizens.

Government: Ideally, a direct and full participatory democracy. All elections are determined through citizen votes. Vote checkers are selected from anonymous,qualified and thoroughly checked citizens who will be isolated until votes are counted. However, since this difficult to organize, a representative democracy may be pursued.

Tax Money: Education, Environmental Conservation, Law Enforcement and Social Welfare are the main concerns of the government. A good chunk of the remainder will go to the military, just to keep it up to date.

Drugs: Legal, but current drug takers cannot run for any political positions or join the military.Former drug takers are not a part of this group.Otherwise, people are free to do as they wish.

Gay Rights: Gay marriage is recognised as equal to Heterosexual marriages, and adoption of children for gay couples is permissable. Homosexual citizens have all the rights of heterosexual citizens.

Abortion: Dependent on the unanimous decision of the couple.If the couple differs, whichever parent wants the child may keep it.If the biological father is unavailible for any reason during the pregnancy, then the mother chooses what to do with her child.If neither parents wants the child, adoption is also availible.

Child Laws: Adoption is highly encouraged, for both homo- and hetero-sexual couples. Child abuse is illegal, however, children must obey their parents or gaurdians, unless the parents are deemed irresponsible by the government.As with driving a car, potential parents must take a parental test to get a license to see if they are qualified to raise future citizens.A government representative will check on the couple every year or so.

Immigration: Immigration is open to all citizens from all nations, as long as the government finds them a good asset to the nation and are able to fit them into the nation.

Influences: Personal beliefs.

Government: Dictatorship headed by me. I believe in a moral relativism wherein the only "proper" morals are the ones that are enforced, either by majority rule or by tyranny. And since my morality tends to be very odd, it's certainly not going to be by majority rule.

Failing that, a green system where all people are allotted a role to fill in ensuring the best survival of our environment and the other species in it.

Tax Money: No taxes. People are given what they need and may earn luxuries through outstanding performance in their assigned tasks.

Drugs: Legal, but if someone becomes addicted to the point where they're useless in service to the planet, they're punished and forbidden from being allotted drugs.

Gay rights: All in favor.

Abortion: Mandatory unless otherwise specified (see below).

Child Laws: In order to maintain such a high-maintenance system as outlined above (and to prevent rebellion), there'd be very strict breeding laws to maintain as close to zero population growth as possible. Birth control would be provided upon request, and those that get pregnant otherwise would be subjected to abortion. A limited number of breeding licenses, as needed to maintain ZPG, will be distributed, with priority going to well-rated parents (those who are dedicated, efficient, and loyal in their service to the planet). Orphaned children can be assigned to foster parents (again, high-rated citizens are given priority). Otherwise, they may be raised by those who are assigned an education task.

Immigration: This government is one of those systems that only really works with complete control. Therefore, immigration would be allowed only to those who demonstrate a sincere and unfailing loyalty to the planet.

Yes, yes, I know. Totally outlandish, would never work, sounds like bad science fiction. Still, that's how I'd like things to go.. I fully admit that the human race is not my number one priority. I'd love for everyone to be happy on an individual level if possible, but first and foremost is their duty to the other species.

Responsibilities you choose to uphold. You're not being compelled.

I don't see it as a choice I could make otherwise. My wife needs me. My children need me. My unborn child is going to need me.

If your argument is that I could just 'choose' to vacate and leave all that, and thus living in a rural economy and having to travel to work is a matter of 'choice', then I have no interest in anything you have to say.

You might be able to step your game up. Hell - there's a lot of room for improvement.

Until - or unless - you do, consider yourself ignored.

I don't see it as a choice I could make otherwise. My wife needs me. My children need me. My unborn child is going to need me.
But that's true of your life because you chose to make it so. You chose to have a wife. You chose to have children (or you chose to risk having chilren if they were an accident).

You're in that situation because you put yourself there. Any consequences you face are therefore your own doing.

But that's true of your life because you chose to make it so. You chose to have a wife. You chose to have children (or you chose to risk having chilren if they were an accident).

You're in that situation because you put yourself there. Any consequences you face are therefore your own doing.This is true, but this doesn't mean that the consequences are constant, necessary, or unable to be changed or mitigated.