NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll incoming. This poll is somewhat related to the Rhaomi's Parallel Goverment project. I thought it would be proper out roughly the balance of political persuastions on NS.

Anti-communist slightly left-wing economically but very socially liberal.

Anti-communist slightly left-wing economically but very socially liberal.

You're a social democrat, then.

Communism is not libertarian.

Before my head gets devoured, my stance is simply this:

A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.

i am often persuaded to associate myself with a capitalistic system but i have so far stuck with libertarian socialism.

Buh? Since when are socialism and communism libertarian?

I don't know, I've really bounced around recently.

Communism is not libertarian.

Before my head gets devoured, my stance is simply this:

A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.

What you call "communism" is an Authoritarian Left-Wing system. THere is such a thing as libertarian communism. Ask the council communists and the anarchist communists- no state ownership and direct democracy.

I'm probably closed to being a centrist out of any of these.

Buh? Since when are socialism and communism libertarian?

Its commonally called anarchism or anarchist-socialism.

Its commonally called anarchism or anarchist-socialism.
So all non-anarchist socialists and communists would have to chose "Authoritarian left"?

That's a rather strange poll, then, isn't it?

So all non-anarchist socialists and communists would have to chose "Authoritarian left"?

That's a rather strange poll, then, isn't it?

That's why I chose libertarian rather than anarchist. It denotes non-authoritarian leftism.

It usually takes sex to persuade me, so whichever one uses sex to its ends. Which is all of them.

Theocracy. With the reservation that I am the god-king-emperor, naturally.

A bit like those Dune books. But without me having to turn into that worm thingamyjig.

Communism is not libertarian.

Before my head gets devoured, my stance is simply this:

A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.

Actually, that's not communism at all. I would assume that what he meant was idealistic, true, or full communism, where the means of production are owned by all the people whom invest in some way or another into that means, equally.

At least that how I read it.

Theocracy. With the reservation that I am the god-king-emperor, naturally.

A bit like those Dune books. But without me having to turn into that worm thingamyjig.

I have a question!

What if you had to keep a lower seat of power (i.e., the American Economic Middle Class (which, in actuality, is just a subclass of the Low with some shiny toys))?

How exactly does left-wing libertarianism differ from right-wing libertarianism?

Is it just a general statement about how you feel individuals in this anarchic society should conduct themselves? Left-wingers favouring a cooperative but voluntary approach, and right-wingers an every man for himself type anarchy? Somehow I find it hard to believe, I doubt there actually is a difference there.

Communism is not libertarian.

Before my head gets devoured, my stance is simply this:

A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.
Who said the government needs to own it for it to be communist? Nobody could own it you know?

2/3rds Social Democrat and 1/3rd Green. :cool::p:cool:

How exactly does left-wing libertarianism differ from right-wing libertarianism?

Is it just a general statement about how you feel individuals in this anarchic society should conduct themselves? Left-wingers favouring a cooperative but voluntary approach, and right-wingers an every man for himself type anarchy? Somehow I find it hard to believe, I doubt there actually is a difference there.

which bit of that distinction do you find difficult to understand?

How exactly does left-wing libertarianism differ from right-wing libertarianism?

Property rights.

Would normally be libertarian Left however the state of the planet has movd me towards the greens even having to start thinking about the concept of authoritarian greens.

I have a question!

What if you had to keep a lower seat of power (i.e., the American Economic Middle Class (which, in actuality, is just a subclass of the Low with some shiny toys))?
Off topic, but...
OMGOMGOMG YOU SIG'D MY SOVIET RUSSIA COMMENT! This is the first time I've ever been sigged. My life is now complete. *hugs*
That earns a fluffle. :fluffle:
*starts singing*

Anyway, on-topic, socially liberal, but capitalism pwns. Libertarian right-wing for the win.

Natural rights right-libertarian republican (with a lower-case r).

I have a question!

What if you had to keep a lower seat of power (i.e., the American Economic Middle Class (which, in actuality, is just a subclass of the Low with some shiny toys))?

It wouldn't work if I had a lower seat. How could I smite people with divine righteousness from a lower seat. Moreover, I am sure it would cut into the amount of pleasure women and trade tribute I would receive.

I have a question!

What if you had to keep a lower seat of power (i.e., the American Economic Middle Class (which, in actuality, is just a subclass of the Low with some shiny toys))?

It wouldn't work if I had a lower seat. How could I smite people with divine righteousness from a lower seat? Moreover, I am sure it would cut into the amount of pleasure women and trade tribute I would receive.

I can't answer the poll, because it isn't multiple choice. I need to be able to pick at least 5 of the options. Oh well.


A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.

You're likely to find that libertarian communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Communism) agree with you.

The stated ideological goal of communism is to destroy class hierarchy, power, and attendent privilege. "All your base are belong to State" is, however, the ultimate monopoly, which in turn is the polar opposite of the classless, stateless, and property-less society.

OK, true, totalitarians from the USSR claimed to be communist. North Korea also claims to be a "democratic republic", George W. Bush also claims to be fighting for freedom, and the corporations also claim to be for free enterprise. Saying it doesn't make it true. *shrugs*

Take note: We've had no one ballsy enough to admit to being an authoritarian of any stripe.

You're likely to find that libertarian communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Communism) agree with you.

Depends on the definition of "government" and "property" (and potentially "economy" and "owned.")

In other words: clarify the point, and then a discussion can be had.

Who said the government needs to own it for it to be communist? Nobody could own it you know?

Then I'd just grab a big stick and proclaim all of the stuff mine, because, deep down; I'm an asshole :D

Then I'd just grab a big stick and proclaim all of the stuff mine :D

Then you would be stealing.

Then you would be stealing.

Nah, it wouldn't belong to anybody. The concept of property, as I see it, would have ceased to exist, and my motivations for being a good little boy would be gone.

Centrist through and through

Nah, it wouldn't belong to anybody.

Then it does not belong to you either.

The concept of property, as I see it, would have ceased to exist, and my motivations for being a good little boy would be gone.

Then your motivations are bad ones.

Then it does not belong to you either.
Then it would belong to the strong, a group which I would intend to join.



Then your motivations are bad ones.

There would be no more good or bad. Just me.

libertarian moderate

Depends on the definition of "government" and "property" (and potentially "economy" and "owned.")


I assume that "government" is intended to mean "state," a very specific type of governance. True, some kind of governing authority would exist in a "libertarian communist" society, but such an entity is intended to be highly decentralized and horizontally configured (<--- the "libertarian" bit). Of course, such an approach still presents plenty of its own problems, but at least the theory or ideology is not intended to include the sort of 1984 totalitarian hellhole that "everything belongs to the state/government" is intented to conjure up.

That's my understanding anyway.

Then it would belong to the strong, a group which I would intend to join.

No, it would belong to nobody.

Your assumption that libertarian communists do not believe in self-defense is, thankfully, unjustified.

There would be no more good or bad. Just me.

Like I said - bad motivations.

No, it would belong to nobody.

Your assumption that libertarian communists do not believe in self-defense is, thankfully, unjustified.

Then I'd kill them, probably in their sleep.

Like I said - bad motivations.

Amoral, actually.

Like I said, I'm an asshole deep down. You remove my incentives to be nice, I stop being nice.

Then I'd kill them, probably in their sleep.

Or perhaps they would kill you first.

You remove my incentives to be nice, I stop being nice.

And what are these "incentives"?

Or perhaps they would kill you first.
That's why I "come out of the woods" in the night. Or perhaps I poison them.



And what are these "incentives"?

Lot's of things, like having my own personal stuff that is inviolate.

Social democracy/democratic socialist.

I'm borderline socialist.

As a vague allusion...I am Gastmann without Baerlach.

I'd probably take it as a personal challenge to get away with it in an anarchist/communist society.

That's why I "come out of the woods" in the night. Or perhaps I poison them.

All of them?

Lot's of things, like having my own personal stuff that is inviolate.

"Inviolate" is such a strong word... one that is not even really true today. And there'd be no good reason to collectivize, say, clothing - not unless people really wanted to for some reason, anyway.

And there'd be no good reason to collectivize, say, clothing - not unless people really wanted to for some reason, anyway.

Could be worse, like collectivized toothbrushes.

Every test I take says Libertarian, but towards the center. I call myself a moderate, but I'm a registered Republican somehow. Gotta go get that fixed... Independants don't vote in the Republican or democratic primaries here, so I just randomly chose one so I could vote in at least one.

Could be worse, like collectivized toothbrushes.

Or collectivized spouses (for the non-swingers, at least).

i am socially liberal and economically socialistic.

There are several strands of Marxsim that entail as specific tenets social-liberalism. It basically entails the freedom to do what you want without harming yourself or society - but without the ability to become filthy stinking rich on the backs of other people.

I hold this particular set of beliefs:
the state should provide healthcare and lifelong learning opportunities for all citizens.
there should be a state safety net and pension
the state should hold all natural resources for the country
the state should control water, gas and electricty generation and provision
nationwide and local mass transit should be a state affair.
people are free to live their social lives as they choose.
i have no objection to fairly taxed and well administered companies providing goods and services to a market place.

I basically believe in a mixed economy - i want a guaranteed water supply and state health care, but i want a choice of where to buy my bagels and automobiles.


W

Right-wing libertarian, considering converting to centrism.

How exactly does left-wing libertarianism differ from right-wing libertarianism?

Is it just a general statement about how you feel individuals in this anarchic society should conduct themselves? Left-wingers favouring a cooperative but voluntary approach, and right-wingers an every man for himself type anarchy? Somehow I find it hard to believe, I doubt there actually is a difference there.

i direct you to Anarcho-Syndicalism, as the left wing version. Everyone basically agrees that they are free to do what they want, but without harming the self imposed worker state that is mutually beneficial.

i think right wing extreme-libertarianism is basically a form of anarchy that does not believe in anything greater than ones self. it would hold that the individual (in a might is right world) is supreme arbiter and sole entity.

Only 8 centrists?

This place needs more.

Libetarian left-wing is for me.

I'm a neo-Aristotelian market liberal. (Roughly what is meant by libertarian [right-wing] in America.)

See this article for a nifty description of what this means:

Human Flourishing and Natural Rights (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/061126-6.htm)

economically right. mostly socially conservative.

As I said in the Tax System thread, I'm pretty apathetic towards the economic side of politics. As long as the no-one is starving and the state isn't unfairly picking on one group for taxation, then whatever is fine by me. I guess that's Centrism... but I dislike calling myself a Centrist, it doesn't really reflect my more radical opinions (and I'm not going to call myself a Radical Centrist, because that sounds stupid).

My real passion is on the social side of things. I am liberal to the core, I view the state as an entity that must constantly beg for support for its very existance, I don't think the state should involve itself in anything that doesn't directly harm others, and I think Tyranny should be the only crime treated with capital punishment.

As for the environmental dimension: I don't believe protecting the environment should ever come above the benefits of human societies. For example, some people would support banning international shipping where possible to avoid the emissions and oceanic pollution that causes. I would not, as I believe that the responsibility we owe to remove third world trading partners from poverty outweighs our own selfish desire to maintain the current climate model.

i think the options are slightly misleading, in that social democrats are essentially "centre left" and there is no definitive "centre right" position to counterbalance.

Add the social-democrats, the "centre right" folks and the pure centrists together and it will probably work out better.


W

Libertarian socialist. However, I vote Green in elections because we don't have any other parties that even remotely resemble my views.

Libertarian socialist. However, I vote Green in elections because we don't have any other left-wing parties. Good for you. *nod* :p

The mind boggles at how libertarianism - the right wing analogue to socialism and communism - could be placed with communism.

Not particularly well thought out poll.

The mind boggles at how libertarianism - the right wing analogue to socialism and communism - could be placed with communism.

Not particularly well thought out poll.

This is a ridiculous point that has been countered time and time again. The right-wing does not have the monopoly on the concept of liberty.

Some combination of drunk and evil :D

This is a ridiculous point that has been countered time and time again. The right-wing does not have the monopoly on the concept of liberty.

Libertarianism is the opposite of communism. What part of this is ambiguous?

Libertarianism isnt "the philosophy of liberty" - it is just business-suit anarchism, and has no legitimate claim to be the philosophy of maximal liberty itself, right wing or not.

Libertarianism is the opposite of communism. What part of this is ambiguous?

Libertarianism isnt "the philosophy of liberty" - it is just business-suit anarchism, and has no legitimate claim to be the philosophy of maximal liberty itself, right wing or not.

The word has a broader use than the US political party, particularly on a world level. Last I checked, "Civil libertarianism" was still a fairly well recognised political position, and does not carry any intrinsic attachment to capitalist economics.

As I said in the Tax System thread, I'm pretty apathetic towards the economic side of politics. As long as the no-one is starving and the state isn't unfairly picking on one group for taxation, then whatever is fine by me. I guess that's Centrism... but I dislike calling myself a Centrist, it doesn't really reflect my more radical opinions (and I'm not going to call myself a Radical Centrist, because that sounds stupid).

My real passion is on the social side of things. I am liberal to the core, I view the state as an entity that must constantly beg for support for its very existance, I don't think the state should involve itself in anything that doesn't directly harm others, and I think Tyranny should be the only crime treated with capital punishment.

As for the environmental dimension: I don't believe protecting the environment should ever come above the benefits of human societies. For example, some people would support banning international shipping where possible to avoid the emissions and oceanic pollution that causes. I would not, as I believe that the responsibility we owe to remove third world trading partners from poverty outweighs our own selfish desire to maintain the current climate model.

Mostly describes my views, except I know that we should (even though I'm not) be wary of how we use our environment. We should talk more often.:fluffle:

This is a ridiculous point that has been countered time and time again. The right-wing does not have the monopoly on the concept of liberty.

No, but the center does. :(

Communism is not libertarian.

Before my head gets devoured, my stance is simply this:

A society where the economy and property are owned by the government is not libertarian.

My thoughts exactly.

I would perfer right wing libertarian society with strong Islamic influences and a Muslim majority. Its an odd mix I know, but it is what I would like.

The word has a broader use than the US political party, particularly on a world level. Last I checked, "Civil libertarianism" was still a fairly well recognised political position, and does not carry any intrinsic attachment to capitalist economics.

When I live in another country I'll bother with its political specturm, OK?

When I live in another country I'll bother with its political specturm, OK?

You do realize that you are an international political forum, right?

And surely you also realize that even US libertarian socialists have long used the term?

Isn't the inclusion of "Corporatist" redundant? Would that not fall under "Authoritarian Right?"

:confused:

You do realize that you are an international political forum, right?

And surely you also realize that even US libertarian socialists have long used the term?

I don't see why. Most "libertarian" socialists I've seen aren't libertarians, but anarchists.

I don't see why. Most "libertarian" socialists I've seen aren't libertarians, but anarchists.

Left-wing anarchists are libertarian socialists.

Left-wing anarchists are libertarian socialists.

Libertarianism =/= Anarchism

Libertarianism =/= Anarchism

Perhaps not among advocates of capitalism, but anarcho-communists have long identified themselves as libertarians.

Libertarian Right Wing is the one for me, I'm a true classical liberal though I do agree on perhaps more radical economic policies employing anarcho-capitalist priciples to create a true free market.

Anarchist Organizations (http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm)

Note the regular occurence of exactly that term.

Libertarian Socialist...of sorts!

Social Democracy according to Political Compass...

Isn't the inclusion of "Corporatist" redundant? Would that not fall under "Authoritarian Right?"

:confused:

No, corporatism is authoritarian centrism.

You do realize that you are an international political forum, right?

And surely you also realize that even US libertarian socialists have long used the term?

Nothing is less relevant to real politics in the US than the nomenclature of foreign parties and the makeup of foreign political spectra.

US libertarian socialists? Both of them? I'm not really interested in the fanciful political imagination of the marginal fringe at all, sorry.

Libertarian "left" although my own thoughts dont fit with the 'socialism and 'communism' . It's more beyond leftism.

I am a democratic socialist, which is NOT social democracy. The only leftists I hate more than social democrats are liberals. Social democrats are pansies because they want social justice (which I respect), but are too reliant on capitalism, which is inherently anti-social justice, so they whole point of social democracy is sort of self-defeating.

Nothing is less relevant to real politics in the US than the nomenclature of foreign parties and the makeup of foreign political spectra.

US libertarian socialists? Both of them? I'm not really interested in the fanciful political imagination of the marginal fringe at all, sorry.

Actually, one could argue that libertarian socialists make up the largest category of socialists. And there are quite a few of us.

A Libertarian mixed with a Jeffersonian. Essentially I believe in the free market, liberty up until it interferes with the rights of another, and more power to the U.S states as opposed to there federal government

Nothing is less relevant to real politics in the US than the nomenclature of foreign parties and the makeup of foreign political spectra.


Especially when the United States insists on taking such an active military, economic, and political role in the international sphere.

Oh, wait...

I like to fly on the left side.

Libertarian Right Wing is the one for me, I'm a true classical liberal though I do agree on perhaps more radical economic policies employing anarcho-capitalist priciples to create a true free market.

not even Adam Smith said there can ever be such a thing as a true free market without some form of regulation.
He had some ire for monopolies and land owners in utterly unregulated markets

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”


Britain was an unregulated market place in the victorian era - and we had child labour, usury, unsafe workplaces and hundreds of thousands absolutely destiture people. markets do not regulate themselves.

Anarchist Organizations (http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm)

Note the regular occurence of exactly that term.

Oh, forget it. They're all pigeonholed into their happy and safe little worldview where everything is exactly how they've formulated it. Heh.

I think the large number of people voting "libertarian left" on the poll comprises evidence in favour of our position.

Anarchist Organizations (http://www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm)

Note the regular occurence of exactly that term.

Point taken.

*concedes, offers cookie as token of surrender*

Point taken.

*concedes, offers cookie as token of surrender*

Maybe I was somewhat mistaken. :p

Maybe I was somewhat mistaken. :p

I'm not the brightest bulb in NSG, but I do know when to admit defeat and take it like a man. :p

I'm a radical socialist. Very radical. Not really communist, but I believe a revolution is perhaps the only way to abolish capitalism.

I don't rightly know where I fit in on that.

Nothing is less relevant to real politics in the US than the nomenclature of foreign parties and the makeup of foreign political spectra.

US libertarian socialists? Both of them? I'm not really interested in the fanciful political imagination of the marginal fringe at all, sorry.

If you wish to be ignorant and narrow-minded, go ahead, but do not expect others to subscribe by the same norms.

I'm not the brightest bulb in NSG, but I do know when to admit defeat and take it like a man. :p

That is a rare trait, but very much a commendable one.

That is a rare trait, but very much a commendable one.

Why thank you. :)

*slips Soheran another cookie*