NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote.

libertarian socialist.

you fail at polls. it's not a great idea to make the poll of a thread trollish.

libertarian socialist.

just vote libertarian - we're taking the word back

libertarian socialist.

That would be Green/left-wing.

I am a registered cheese helmet, whatever that means.

Note to self: joke options spoil polls.

Worst poll ever.

the joke option wasn't the problem, it was the lack of a non-affiliation option and an option 9.

Proud Republican. They don't avoid me at school when talking about politics for no reason you know...

Note to self: joke options spoil polls.

Joke options turn poll into pwn.

Proud Republican

not even secretly ashamed?

the joke option wasn't the problem, it was the lack of a non-affiliation option and an option 9.

Cheese Helmet IS the non-affiliation option.

not even secretly ashamed?

Not in the slightest.

Cheese Helmet IS the non-affiliation option.
*sighs*
I am a registered cheese helmet, whatever that means.

Gay communist pussy.

Not one of those are insults.

GASP!!!

We have a republican in our midst! Tactical maneuver 112-XQ-Zero!

:sniper:
:mp5:
:gundge: :gundge:
:mp5:
:sniper:

Yeah... um... look... I guess we could somewhat accept you as being half human if you at least don't follow Ann Coulter.

Just say you don't and be done with it. :-D

Don't worry, I'm just kidding. I have a few republican friends... I just don't talk politics with them... really vice versa if you get my drift :wink:

I have liberal friends... we just don't talk politics... mind you.

None of the above? I'm too fiscally conservative to be a liberal, too fiscally liberal to be a libertarian, too socially liberal to be a libertarian, and utterly opposed to the GOP.

I'm mostly just a progressive.

But, given those choices, I'm a Cheese Helmet. That's fine, I like cheese.

So are you republican, really, or just conservative and want to give it the name "republican" so that those who are dumb enough not to understand "conservative" will understand?

And the question still stands... do you agree in any way, shape, or form with Ann Coulter?

So are you republican, really, or just conservative and want to give it the name "republican" so that those who are dumb enough not to understand "conservative" will understand?

And the question still stands... do you agree in any way, shape, or form with Ann Coulter?

I am a republican and conservative. I agree in some ways with her, but believe she is to much of a radical, but she does have some good points.

None of the above? I'm too fiscally conservative to be a liberal, too fiscally liberal to be a libertarian, too socially liberal to be a libertarian, and utterly opposed to the GOP.

I'm mostly just a progressive.

But, given those choices, I'm a Cheese Helmet. That's fine, I like cheese.

Good man! We need more people who are right in the middle: people who are willing to think on their feet and see what's right through all the mumbo-jumbo that the media and such spit out.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite, seeing as I was raised in a very right-wing setting, and I follow suit, but hey, c'mon. I guess for every right-wing bastard there has to be a left-wing one too...

Good man! We need more people who are right in the middle: people who are willing to think on their feet and see what's right through all the mumbo-jumbo that the media and such spit out.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite, seeing as I was raised in a very right-wing setting, and I follow suit, but hey, c'mon. I guess for every right-wing bastard there has to be a left-wing one too...

I would hardly call myself right in the middle. On social issues I'm a social libertarian. It's economic issues where I sit in the middle.

And, back in the day, I was the left-wing bastard to balance the scales, as it were. I was a full-fledged anarcho-communist. Then I grew up. :p

I would hardly call myself right in the middle. On social issues I'm a social libertarian. It's economic issues where I sit in the middle.

And, back in the day, I was the left-wing bastard to balance the scales, as it were. I was a full-fledged anarcho-communist. Then I grew up. :p

I was largely the same. I was a -10/-10 on the Political Compass... And even that didn't measure just how far-left I really was.

But then, I grew up. I realised something called independence, and why it's so important. That's not to say that I'm against people starting communes; in fact, I fully support the right to do so. Hey, so long as everybody's willing, eh?

I would hardly call myself right in the middle. On social issues I'm a social libertarian. It's economic issues where I sit in the middle.

And, back in the day, I was the left-wing bastard to balance the scales, as it were. I was a full-fledged anarcho-communist. Then I grew up. :p
I used to be an anarcho-communist. Then I got a job and realized that most people cannot tell their ass from the toilet paper they wipe it with.

Vote.

No, fuck you.

EDIY: Damnit! I voted in your poll. You damn liberal, you.

I was largely the same. I was a -10/-10 on the Political Compass... And even that didn't measure just how far-left I really was.

But then, I grew up. I realised something called independence, and why it's so important. That's not to say that I'm against people starting communes; in fact, I fully support the right to do so. Hey, so long as everybody's willing, eh?

That's basically my philosophy. I beleive that the true needs of personal freedom are balanced in a moderate economic model. The other two ways, it seems to me that you lose your ability to make choces for yourself.

Independant free-thinker here. Liberal on some issues, conservative on others, looking out for number one on all.

That's basically my philosophy. I beleive that the true needs of personal freedom are balanced in a moderate economic model. The other two ways, it seems to me that you lose your ability to make choces for yourself.

Yeah, and my colleagues' (UDCP) ideas for everyone becoming a janitor once or twice a week was... Less than appealing.

For an idealogy that's supposed to be about freedom of choice and participation, there sure was a lot of talk about forcing things on people.

Yeah, and my colleagues' (UDCP) ideas for everyone becoming a janitor once or twice a week was... Less than appealing.

For an idealogy that's supposed to be about freedom of choice and participation, there sure was a lot of talk about forcing things on people.

My father used to hang a picture in his office that said, "Every Job has a bit of Toilet Cleaning," (meaning that every job has unpleasant aspects). Apparently your colleagues took the concept a little too far.

And, back in the day, I was the left-wing bastard to balance the scales, as it were. I was a full-fledged anarcho-communist. Then I grew up. :p

But the happy days of being a kid are the best! I can't grow up! :-D

But yeah, if you think about it, there is no real good way to manage government. I think it was Winston Churchill that said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others". Or somethin' like that.

If there was a single, benevolent, and informed monarch, then everything would be good. But there are still problems with that. There's no end to the madness, is there?

My father used to hang a picture in his office that said, "Every Job has a bit of Toilet Cleaning," (meaning that every job has unpleasant aspects). Apparently your colleagues took the concept a little too far.

I'd say so.

Granted, every job does have its shortcomings, but a policy of enforcing something terrible on every damn person is way out there as far as I'm concerned.

Gay communist pussy.

Not one of those are insults.

Communist and pussy are.

Communist and pussy are.

Not if you are refering to communist women who are willing to share.:D

Communist and pussy are.

How so?


A Commune can be a wonderful thing, and many Communists I've known are good people.

And what's wrong with pussy? Hey, I really shouldn't have to ask. Then again, you could be homosexual, which would indeed explain your aversion to said organ(s)... Of course, there's still nothing wrong with it even so, as it happens to allow life.

Well?

Not if you are refering to communist women who are willing to share.:D

All for the good of the people as a whole! "Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge".
:D

And what's wrong with pussy? Hey, I really shouldn't have to ask. Then again, you could be homosexual, which would indeed explain your aversion to said organ(s)... Of course, there's still nothing wrong with it even so, as it happens to allow life.

Well?

Um, not to play devil's advocate or anything *COUGH* *COUGH* but um, Webster's Dictionary refers to "pussy" as being vulgar slang.

So, um, yeah. It has negative connotations associated with it.

That's not to say, of course, that it couldn't be a good thing... >_>

"Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge"

How so?


A Commune can be a wonderful thing, and many Communists I've known are good people.

And what's wrong with pussy? Hey, I really shouldn't have to ask. Then again, you could be homosexual, which would indeed explain your aversion to said organ(s)... Of course, there's still nothing wrong with it even so, as it happens to allow life.

By "Communism", I'm referring to the kind of Communism that we tried to contain during the Cold War.

By "pussy", I'm using the "Team America: World Police" definition.

Meh, even if the poll wasn't inane I doubt by political "affiliation" could be summed up in a phrase.

By "Communism", I'm referring to the kind of Communism that we tried to contain during the Cold War.

By "pussy", I'm using the "Team America: World Police" definition.

...Did you hear that?

Granted, every job does have its shortcomings, but a policy of enforcing something terrible on every damn person is way out there as far as I'm concerned.

much better to make sure that only some people get stuck doing all the dirty work, right?

much better to make sure that only some people get stuck doing all the dirty work, right?

Better a few have the gig as a (hopefully) temporary thing than attempt to force everybody to do it, no?

Better a few have the gig as a (hopefully) temporary thing than attempt to force everybody to do it, no?

if there is something that nobody wants to volunteer to do, and you want this shit work done, you get to do a bit of shit work. if you want to not have to do it, then you best figure out a way to eliminate it entirely rather than shoving it off on somebody else. anything else is manifestly anti-egalitarian and unjust.

just vote libertarian - we're taking the word back
By throwing stones at policemen?

I always reckon that left-wing and right-wing libertarians should really be able to work together. Whenever the government wants to regulate something, both should by rights oppose it. Then, when there is minimal government, both sides should be able to coexist peacefully. Hey, it doesn't even matter whether property rights are legally enforced, since both sides claim for themselves that everyone will respect and be happy the respective organisation of the economy.

Communist and pussy are.

I'm a proud communist, and the implication of effeminacy is not insulting.

Better a few have the gig as a (hopefully) temporary thing than attempt to force everybody to do it, no?

The need for people to do dirty work is not "temporary."

The need for people to do dirty work is not "temporary."

Read carefully. I didn't say that the need was temporary: I said that the employment of an individual would be temporary. Hopefully.

By throwing stones at policemen?

no, by using it consistently in public venues. throwing stuff at cops is for other purposes entirely.

Whenever the government wants to regulate something, both should by rights oppose it.

We'll apply it to taxes if you apply it to the enforcement of private property.

ill go with whoev can help me. im curently on welfare and i have two daughters and for me its all about social help.

We'll apply it to taxes if you apply it to the enforcement of private property.
But that doesn't make any sense in actual day to day politics.

High taxation within our current system of government doesn't serve the communist agenda any more than the libertarian one. So to support it just to spite the capitalists, as it were, doesn't seem like a smart strategy.

Ultimately the question of enforcing private property doesn't come up all that often in parliamentary debate. If it does, most of the time it's about the government confiscating people's stuff, which again doesn't really fit the communist strategy.

I suppose one would have to sit down together for the occasional things like squatting in various buildings. I think you could easily get an agreement if it's government property, but it would require some debate to find a common position if it's private property. But by no means nothing that should prevent us from even trying.

I didn't say that the need was temporary: I said that the employment of an individual would be temporary.

Yeah, and because the need isn't temporary, some other individual will have to be employed. You can't just disappear the need.

And where are you going to get these people? You either can get them from society as a whole (the UDCP solution), or from the class of people desperate enough to take the job (the capitalist solution.)

Vote.

None of the above. I fully support fascist police actions to suppress hippies, communists, and other whackos so that means I'm not a communist. I would support the same police actions to prevent a Stalinist revolution like in Russia, so I'm not one of those guys either.

I don't like Libertarians since they would get rid of the security measures I'd put in place to prevent Communist suvbersion so...I'm not much of a Libertarian either now am I?

And, I don't like the Republicans because they spend way too much, are a handful of chickenhawks, and refuse to involve the government when vital industries are failing (Example... Ford's going down the tube because the union won't concede... the government should step in with modernized Pinkerton agents, break that shit up, get the people back to work, and get the company out of the shitter.)

I think I have to choose "None of the above".

Yeah, and because the need isn't temporary, some other individual will have to be employed. You can't just disappear the need.

And where are you going to get these people? You either can get them from society as a whole (the UDCP solution), or from the class of people desperate enough to take the job (the capitalist solution.)

Say what you will, but my janitorial job got me out of a nasty welfare fix, and I was able to buy quite a bid of good product... A guitar and several damn good records, plus a record player and a new digital camera. Not to mention it paid my bills.

I now work as a bagger at a local supermarket and am getting back on track. Once again, it's about hard work and looking up, not complaining like a whiny bitch and damning everybody but yourself.

Yeah, and because the need isn't temporary, some other individual will have to be employed. You can't just disappear the need.

And where are you going to get these people? You either can get them from society as a whole (the UDCP solution), or from the class of people desperate enough to take the job (the capitalist solution.)
Robots, robots.

Vetallia wants to be a robot, don't he? Make him clean up all our shit.

High taxation within our current system of government doesn't serve the communist agenda any more than the libertarian one.

Depends on what it funds.

Ultimately the question of enforcing private property doesn't come up all that often in parliamentary debate.

Of course it doesn't. It's assumed. And that is precisely the point.

You want us to support your anti-statist proposals - but as long as real anti-statism is not on the table, as long as contesting the statist property claim is not joined to contesting the capitalist property claim, as long as the dimunition of state power merely means the extension of private power (which is really just state power of a different kind), there's no reason for an anarchist to go along with you.

Indeed, depending on the circumstances, there may be reason for an anarchist to oppose you. A democratic state is in some ways more akin to an anarchist form of political organization than a big corporation.

but my janitorial job got me out of a nasty welfare fix

Great. The point is that the "nasty welfare fix" should not exist in the first place. This, indeed, is the starting premise that brings up the whole issue.

"We want to abolish economic classes by promoting economic equality."

"Who will do the dirty work, then?"

"We'll all share it."

I don't fit into the silly political molds of the poll. Those aren't the only political views out there you know.

Robots, robots.

Vetallia wants to be a robot, don't he? Make him clean up all our shit.
Don't you mean Potarius?

Great. The point is that the "nasty welfare fix" should not exist in the first place. This, indeed, is the starting premise that brings up the whole issue.

"We want to abolish economic classes by promoting economic equality."

"Who will do the dirty work, then?"

"We'll all share it."

1: Why? It happened legitimately, not through the fault of others. For starters, my dad contracted acute kidney disease and was hospitalised in late 1997, undergoing bypass surgery in 1998, and then landing us on welfare because he couldn't work. Things were fine, because my grandmother was paying a good deal of our living expenses.

In 1999, my dad finally had a successful surgery that allowed him to recover (removing a very badly damaged kidney that had shrunken to the size of a grape). Fast forward to 2000, when he was well enough to work, and started taking insurance leads. He got quite a few customers who were very willing to buy, but he suddenly stopped, saying that he "just couldn't take the work" and that he "didn't feel good enough to do it". (In reality, I'd learn six years later that this was a load of bullshit. He stopped his insurance work because his license had expired, and all he had to do was renew it for $35. But what did he do? Since he wanted to be a bum and watch TV on his bed all day and night, he bought me PC games out the wazoo, and then used that as a scapegoat for not being able to afford his license renewal. Feel free to cringe.) Anyway, it was only a nasty fix because dear old dad made it that way (oh, there's a lot more to it than that little rant in parenthesis).

2: How do you propose doing this without forcing things on people? Inequality is inherent in our species. People are born smarter than others, just as people are born dumber than others. Some are very good at physical activity, while others aren't. Am I to believe that because of some equality standard, I'm to be held in the same regard as somebody with half my intelligence, and then in the same regard as somebody who is a much better athlete? A lot of people are good workers. A lot of people are lazy. Lazy (be it physically or mentally, or both) people usually end up where they deserve to be, through nobody's fault but their own. Being poor is a state of mind. There are plenty of people, myself included, who don't make much money, but live good, clean, desirable lives. Well, I'd still like to have furniture (and live in NYC), but other than that, there's not much to be unhappy about.

3: What if I don't want to share it? Are you (or you and your proverbial cronies) going to hold me at gunpoint if I say no?

Don't you mean Potarius?

No, he means Vetalia. He's made several posts about wanting his brain to be put into a robot body.

Me, not so much... I like my body the way it is. :p

Don't you mean Potarius?

I mean Vetalia, as in the owner of the second post in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522457) thread. But if Potarius wants to be a robot too, I'd be perfectly happy having another person to clean up my messyness.

No, he means Vetalia. He's made several posts about wanting his brain to be put into a robot body.

Me, not so much... I like my body the way it is. :p

So you won't clean my pee...:(

I mean Vetalia, as in the owner of the second post in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522457) thread. But if Potarius wants to be a robot too, I'd be perfectly happy having another person to clean up my messyness.
Well I must admit, the thought did cross my mind the other day when I got a look at what parasites can do to a human body. Having to give up sex then put me off that idea. :)

Well I must admit, the thought did cross my mind the other day when I got a look at what parasites can do to a human body. Having to give up sex then put me off that idea. :)
Just get a sex card installed.

throughly left wing to the extreme. Just need to wait for the hung parliment and... Although I am often mocked for my views about gays (I go to school), one of my friends wants to legalise animal sex. Just don't ask.

P.S notice how only the libertarians arn't inulted... Only the insult regarding republicans is true

It's too bad that I can't edit the poll options. I'd add something about tinfoil hats to the libertarian-ish option.

It's too bad that I can't edit the poll options. I'd add something about tinfoil hats to the libertarian-ish option.

I'm sure it would be hilarious.:rolleyes:

I'm sure it would be hilarious.:rolleyes:
Well it is hilarious, but more so in the sense that people are probably laughing at G-Max rather than with him.

In soviet Russia, politics affiliates you!

This thread is becoming alarmingly on topic.

Why must I be so alarmingly brilliant? Why must I be so superior to the common man? It's getting hard to find dates.

Where's the option for evil libertarian pussy? I'd vote for that.

Indeed, depending on the circumstances, there may be reason for an anarchist to oppose you. A democratic state is in some ways more akin to an anarchist form of political organization than a big corporation.

A democratic state is in no way anarchist, it is firmly opposed to anarchism. On the other hand, the corporation is a perfectly natural method of collective ownership; in the absense of the state the corporation can still exist.

Only when the STATE intercedes on behalf of the corporation (an act that is brought about by state corruption) does the corporation even have the semblance of a political organization.

In soviet Russia, politics affiliates you!

LOL

I'm a proper liberterian, i.e. an anachist communist.


By throwing stones at policemen?

Sometimes fighting with cops is necessary (i.e. if some pig's about to put the boot in, you can bet I'll kick him in the balls). Sometimes the cops are only people actually ensuring there is any kind of safety in working class communities. It's not something that can be addressed in simple terms.

I always reckon that left-wing and right-wing libertarians should really be able to work together.
Why would we want to? We have nothing in common and are diametrically opposed.

Whenever the government wants to regulate something, both should by rights oppose it.
No, it is impractical and unrealistic to kneejerk oppose all government regulation. For example, people should be sensible enough to wear seat belts and not drink-drive without laws telling them not to but if laws against both were repealed I wouldn't be celebrating a victory for communism. I do not define freedom as being able to do whatever the fuck I want, whenever I want on purely individualistic terms because that really would be anarchy. ;)

Then, when there is minimal government, both sides should be able to coexist peacefully. Hey, it doesn't even matter whether property rights are legally enforced, since both sides claim for themselves that everyone will respect and be happy the respective organisation of the economy.

:D

I want what you've been smoking.

A democratic state is in no way anarchist, it is firmly opposed to anarchism.

I agree. :cool:

A democratic state is in no way anarchist,

Obviously it is not. It is a state.

it is firmly opposed to anarchism.

Yeah, so?

Capitalism is firmly opposed to anarchism, too. I take what I can get.

On the other hand, the corporation is a perfectly natural method of collective ownership;

So is Stalinism. Only it's the wrong collective.

Only when the STATE intercedes on behalf of the corporation (an act that is brought about by state corruption) does the corporation even have the semblance of a political organization.

Land owned by a corporation in anarcho-capitalism and land controlled by a state are indistinguishable in every relevant sense.

Aren't "left-wing libertarian" and "right-wing libertarian" both oxymorons? *consults Nolan chart*

Yeah, and my colleagues' (UDCP) ideas for everyone becoming a janitor once or twice a week was... Less than appealing.

For an idealogy that's supposed to be about freedom of choice and participation, there sure was a lot of talk about forcing things on people.

I'd say so.

Granted, every job does have its shortcomings, but a policy of enforcing something terrible on every damn person is way out there as far as I'm concerned.Free Soviets and Soheran answered this well, but I would have to agree that the janitorial job should be temporary - until it is done by machines, that is.
Wouldn't having everybody do it speed this process along?

1: Why? It happened legitimately, not through the fault of others. For starters, my dad contracted acute kidney disease and was hospitalised in late 1997, undergoing bypass surgery in 1998, and then landing us on welfare because he couldn't work. Things were fine, because my grandmother was paying a good deal of our living expenses.

In 1999, my dad finally had a successful surgery that allowed him to recover (removing a very badly damaged kidney that had shrunken to the size of a grape). Fast forward to 2000, when he was well enough to work, and started taking insurance leads. He got quite a few customers who were very willing to buy, but he suddenly stopped, saying that he "just couldn't take the work" and that he "didn't feel good enough to do it". (In reality, I'd learn six years later that this was a load of bullshit. He stopped his insurance work because his license had expired, and all he had to do was renew it for $35. But what did he do? Since he wanted to be a bum and watch TV on his bed all day and night, he bought me PC games out the wazoo, and then used that as a scapegoat for not being able to afford his license renewal. Feel free to cringe.) Anyway, it was only a nasty fix because dear old dad made it that way (oh, there's a lot more to it than that little rant in parenthesis).Why should you be held accountable for the decisions of your father?

green green green green, green green green green!

i'm eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist and green is also my favorite color!

bizdroidism and stateism are equaly hierarchal and thus it is THEY, not the egalitarian ethic (without which we'd still be living in caves or swing by our tails through the trees) that are tyrannicly totalitarian.

freedom i define as never having to worry about being robbed of your calmness.
(not something i've ever seen on this earth)
tyranny is when it takes and act of courage simply to be honest.

both are equaly probable
both are equaly probable under ANY governemnt
under any FORM of government
any economic theory
any idiology
any belief or lack of beliefr

freedom is only made more probable then tyranny by not robbing others of theirs by being careless in how you exercise your own.

something no amount of killing and dying can ever take the place of.

as for the web of life; that's where the air we breathe comes from, and without that, every other question (in the context of tangable organic life) would be pretty thoroughly meaningless.

=^^=
.../\...

I want what you've been smoking.
So you freely accept that your sort of communism only works if everyone else is forced to participate?

What exactly stands against anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist communities existing side by side?

Note to self: joke options spoil polls.

Note to self: Inane polls ruin threads.