NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your political position?

Right wing, I suppose. But right-wing in Sweden probably counts as leftist in some other countries.

I would describe myself as left wing. I have a couple conservative opinions, but the rest of my political beliefs are too far left to describe myself as center or moderate.

Left-wing I suppose. I occasionally have 'right-wing' moments but they are few and far between.

I'm a centrist, but I've never been described as a moderate.

I border on anarchy. I believe the government's singular job is to put into effect and then enforce the laws as dictated by the majority. The position of president should strictly be an ambassador position. Get rid of the Senate altogether.

Other than that single job, the government should have no other responsibilities or powers. The military force should be a separate entity, guided still by a popular vote of 'yes/no' to offense. When in war it is assumed that the military leaders may use their gut in terms of strategies.

In my Utopia, there's no -need- for anything other than the government (no military at all) because children are taught from a very young age that conflict is something to be found in art and entertainment (Quozl!, anyone?). And yes, I say my Utopia - which will probably never come to fruition. Oh well.

I'm a pendulum. I swing from a sort of "libertarian capitalist on principle", objectivist position to a sort of "libertarian capitalist by lack of alternatives" CSE/J.S. Mill-utilitarian position.

Lookie here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11076192&postcount=36

So I don't sit comfortably on a right-left spectrum. I disagree with socialists and communists passionately, but appreciate the fact that the serious ones operate on a system of rational thought and on strength of actual arguments. I'm much more opposed to conservatives and religious people, who don't give a damn about reason and are perfectly willing to use (state-)violence to impose their unjustifiable will on others.

So I'm against: taxes, economic regulations (with a few exceptions), welfare payments (both private and corporate), big militaries, big police, religion in public, gun control (above a very basic licensing system like for cars), speed limits, security etc

I'm for: free trade, open borders, abortion, gay marriage, education, pollution trading schemes, central bank autonomy, liberty etc

My favourite US Presidential Candidate is Mike Gravel, the last person I voted for is Angela Merkel. Today if I had to join a political party it would be the FDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freie_Demokratische_Partei) in Germany.

center-right for americans, right-wing for europeans, leftist in my country.

You know right that Mike Gravel has some policies generally regarded as left-wing right, socialized healthcare, an unconditional 'living wage' etc
Also Neu Leonstein I hear the Social Democrats and Left are coming back in Germany.

I think I'm something between Moderate and Centre-left, if there is such a thing.

Lookie here: gun control (above a very basic licensing system like for cars)

I quite agree with the licensing of guns and such. You have to have a license to drive a car, I see no reason why you shouldn't have to have a license to operate a piece of equipment that is just as dangerous when handled stupidly.

What is your political position?

I must declare a failure of this poll due to one-dimensionalitude.

Far left-wing socially, centre-left wing economically, and...err...not entirely certain exactly on the political scale, mainly because I don't know where I fit.

I consider my self to possibly be one or all of the following: social liberal, social democrat, Ralwsian liberal, liberal egalitarian. So I could be anywhere from center-left to just plain left.

left-wing i think, far-left for you Americans.

You know right that Mike Gravel has some policies generally regarded as left-wing right, socialized healthcare, an unconditional 'living wage' etc
I know. The living wage is something he'd never get passed anyways, so it's a moot point. The socialised healthcare...well, I've come to the conclusion that this hybrid system right now is so fucked up that the American taxpayer would actually end up better off with a socialised system than they are right now. Even better would be a proper and deep reform of the current system, but I don't think America has the politicians capable of doing that.

More unfortunate is Gravel's leaning towards protectionism, but he's just the least bad choice. I can't stand Ron Paul because he's one of those "forest hut with beaverpelt hat"-nuts posing as a libertarian.

On the plus side, Gravel agrees with pretty much all my stances (including taxation), which has got to be a bonus. ;)

Also Neu Leonstein I hear the Social Democrats and Left are coming back in Germany.
Or rather, the Social Democrats are coming back to the Left. :p

Basically Schröder's market-based reforms worked, and the country is experiencing a boom like it hasn't in a decade or more. But because the reforms also destroyed the SPD, the new boss now decided to go all left-wing again and wants to reverse them. It's nuts, really, but that's politics for you.

The Left party just attracts the same voters it always has, namely those who don't think much but feel very strongly that rich people (and Americans) are evil.

I know. The living wage is something he'd never get passed anyways, so it's a moot point. The socialised healthcare...well, I've come to the conclusion that this hybrid system right now is so fucked up that the American taxpayer would actually end up better off with a socialised system than they are right now. Even better would be a proper and deep reform of the current system, but I don't think America has the politicians capable of doing that.

More unfortunate is Gravel's leaning towards protectionism, but he's just the least bad choice. I can't stand Ron Paul because he's one of those "forest hut with beaverpelt hat"-nuts posing as a libertarian.

On the plus side, Gravel agrees with pretty much all my stances (including taxation), which has got to be a bonus. ;)


Or rather, the Social Democrats are coming back to the Left. :p

Basically Schröder's market-based reforms worked, and the country is experiencing a boom like it hasn't in a decade or more. But because the reforms also destroyed the SPD, the new boss now decided to go all left-wing again and wants to reverse them. It's nuts, really, but that's politics for you.

The Left party just attracts the same voters it always has, namely those who don't think much but feel very strongly that rich people (and Americans) are evil.
Well I watch the German news channel (the one in English) on SBS every week day, and the report seemed to indicate that the Merkel labor reforms weren't so popular, and that the SDP is in danger of loosing it's working class domination to the Left party.

Well I watch the German news channel (the one in English) on SBS every week day, and the report seemed to indicate that the Merkel labor reforms weren't so popular, and that the SDP is in danger of loosing it's working class domination to the Left party.
I can also recommend http://www.spiegel.de/international/.

Anyways, Merkel hasn't been that busy with reforms. The big labour reforms were done by Schröder, who was of course from the SPD. Right now the SPD and the CDU/CSU are in a coalition government, but because the traditional members of the SPD are so disillusioned with the party, Kurt Beck's plan is to seriously differentiate himself from the CDU and the last few SPD leaders.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,513117,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,510374,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,501117,00.html

I prefer to be under a communist and on top of a capitalist.

Or did you mean my political views? Anarcho-communist.

Anarchism goes under the 'gone so far to the left I've ended up on the right' spectrum.

Anarchism goes under the 'gone so far to the left I've ended up on the right' spectrum.How so?

Both. I agree with the right on an ideological level but still side with the left in the end because their positions are more practical in reality.

For example I agree with the economical right that tax is theft and progressive taxes are unfair but since welfare, free education, universal healthcare are very much needed in society I side with the economical left on high progressive taxes. Progressive because a lot of people including my 85 year old grandma wouldn't be able to afford a home after taxes otherwise.

Another example is that I agree with the conservative right that abortions are wrong but still side with the liberal left to allow abortions because any government that thinks it has the authority or ability to make that choice for women is delusional. Women will have abortions one way or another no matter what the government says.

For example I agree with the economical right that tax is theft and progressive taxes are unfair but since welfare, free education, universal healthcare are very much needed in society I side with the economical left on high progressive taxes. Progressive because a lot of people including my 85 year old grandma wouldn't be able to afford a home after taxes otherwise.
So you think that an action is morally wrong, but you support it anyways because it benefits you. Isn't that the textbook definition of, well, irredeemable evil?

So you think that an action is morally wrong, but you support it anyways because it benefits you. Isn't that the textbook definition of, well, irredeemable evil?

Or capitalism.

Or capitalism.
Hardly. A capitalist wouldn't think that his or her action is evil, but do it anyways. He says he does.

So it's not merely a difference of moral codes, it's a willing and knowing choice to violate one's own moral code.

Hardly. A capitalist wouldn't think that his or her action is evil, but do it anyways. He says he does.

So it's not merely a difference of moral codes, it's a willing and knowing choice to violate one's own moral code.
Or maybe an absence of a moral code altogether, there being a difference from doing good and doing well.

So you think that an action is morally wrong, but you support it anyways because it benefits you. Isn't that the textbook definition of, well, irredeemable evil?
I prefer to call it chaotic good.

What the textbook says is the right thing to do in theory and what is good to do in reality are sometimes entirely different things. Generalized moral rules doesn't always match the complicated situations that you encounter in reality. I still think the moral rules are valid in general (and I personally think the right are right in principle) but in specific situations it's often better to make an exception (so I end up siding with the left on most of the important issues).

For example let's say a bus driver encounters someone who claims to have been robbed on the way home from a party so they can't afford a ticket. I think the good thing for the bus driver to do would be to break a rule and let the poor fella on the bus even though giving free rides is both against the rules and unfair towards the bus company which is who the driver has a duty to be loyal to.

A socialist who suffers no fools gladly, be they on the right or left wing.

Well I watch the German news channel (the one in English) on SBS every week day, and the report seemed to indicate that the Merkel labor reforms weren't so popular, and that the SDP is in danger of loosing it's working class domination to the Left party.
The Linke Partei is going nowhere fast, outside of the ex-DDR, which doesn't hold enough voters, due to being the ex-DDR, to really sway things.

So you think that an action is morally wrong, but you support it anyways because it benefits you. Isn't that the textbook definition of, well, irredeemable evil?

Can we dispense with the silly dramatics? :rolleyes: That's not what he (she?) said. If I understand him correctly, it's a balance, going for the "lesser evil".

The capitalist view that a person's "right" not to be taxed somehow outweighs another person's right to the basic necessities of life is, quite frankly, sickening.

I consider myself far-right. I believe that democracy and egalitarianism are wrong and that the state is their cause, and thus support the state's abolition in favor of reinstituting an aristocracy of natural authority.

I consider myself a far-right classical liberal/libertarian. I ardently oppose egalitarianism, democracy, and all strains of leftism, from social democracy to communism to National Socialism. I believe in complete economic and social freedom and the right to do whatever one wishes, provided they do not harm anyone else or violate anyone else's rights. I also believe that voting rights should be limited to those who can pass a political literacy test. I favor a 100% laissez faire economy, a highly de-centralized government, and a peaceful foreign policy where we have diplomatic relations and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none.

I'm a left-wing anarchist who leans communist economically.

The only issue on which I could be considered "right-wing" is gun control, and that issue really isn't a matter of left/right anyway.

Anarchism goes under the 'gone so far to the left I've ended up on the right' spectrum.

Because radical political and economic equality are somehow "right-wing"?

I'm far right economically (National Capitalist), but vary on my authoritarian/libertarian views. Some things I want to see regulation in, but I want the government out of others. For example, I believe in low taxes and limited government, but I'm not a big fan of legalizing marijuana and am anti-abortion. I'm generally anti-Liberal and anti-Communist. While they agree with some of my views, I'm still opposed to National Socialists because they're socialist... and often a bit more extreme than I'd like.

Because radical political and economic equality are somehow "right-wing"?

Well if you define anarchism as having no state, then there is no state to regulate the economy.

An internet quiz tells me that "You have a good understanding of your class interests and are very radical, but you will submit to no tyranny, no matter what its colors or politics."

Sounds good to me.

And don't speak to me of "wings" unless they're covered in hot sauce and blue cheese.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Duffs_chicken_wings.jpg/180px-Duffs_chicken_wings.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Wings)

Hardly. A capitalist wouldn't think that his or her action is evil, but do it anyways. He says he does.

So it's not merely a difference of moral codes, it's a willing and knowing choice to violate one's own moral code.

So, you're saying that Capitalists are only Capitalists because they don't realise how intrinsically wrong it is?

The capitalist view that a person's "right" not to be taxed somehow outweighs another person's right to the basic necessities of life is, quite frankly, sickening.

Since when was this ever a capitalist view point?

So, you're saying that Capitalists are only Capitalists because they don't realise how intrinsically wrong it is?

There is no such thing as intrinsic evil.

Libertarian, classically liberal, laissez-faire capitalist with minimal socialism, which is necessary for civilization.

(most government is socialist to some extent, regardless.)

Outside this silly, outdated, one dimesional scale.

There is no such thing as intrinsic evil.

I didn't say intrinsic evil.

Next person who fails to even read the post they think they're responding to...

The capitalist view that a person's "right" not to be taxed somehow outweighs another person's right to the basic necessities of life is, quite frankly, sickening.
Go ahead and be sick as much as you like. Unless you can put forward a rational argument to the contrary, I'm not gonna be swayed a whole lot.

So, you're saying that Capitalists are only Capitalists because they don't realise how intrinsically wrong it is?
No, I'm saying that if someone has a code of morality, and willingly breaks it, that's different to people just having different codes of morality. Nothing less, nothing more.

Well if you define anarchism as having no state, then there is no state to regulate the economy.

And if you define democracy as not having a dictator, then there is no dictator to regulate the economy.

Therefore, democracy is on the extreme right.

Other; it'd somewhat contradict my thread against ideology labels to just give myself a "position"

No, I'm saying that if someone has a code of morality, and willingly breaks it, that's different to people just having different codes of morality. Nothing less, nothing more.

So, Capitalists are ignorant of the intrinsic wrongness of what they do... and thus are Capitalists because they know no better?

I'm a mutualist so I support a cooperatives and individual enterpreneurs based free market but I don't support people profiting of other's hard work and people being born rich and having everything in their hands with minimal effort, I guess it's Extreme Libertarian and Near Extreme Left.

And if you define democracy as not having a dictator, then there is no dictator to regulate the economy.

Therefore, democracy is on the extreme right.

Wrong, as demonstrated above, not all forms of non-capitalist economies are based on a highly centralized, bureaucratic planned economy done by a centralized State(usually a Police State).

So, Capitalists are ignorant of the intrinsic wrongness of what they do... and thus are Capitalists because they know no better?
Are you really up for proving to me the "intrinsic wrongness" here?

my political possition is sitting down.
if i tried to stand for something i'd fall on my ass.

what i consider to be dead rational center others have called a wee bit to the left, but i'll let them worry about that.

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

Right there.

Unless you can put forward a rational argument to the contrary, I'm not gonna be swayed a whole lot.


Rational argument? You're not arguing on the basis of reason. You simply state your view that a person's "right" not to be taxed is more important than any other person's right to access the basic necessities for survival. There's nothing rational about that. And nothing human, either.

If you are going to state such views and then talk about reason, the onus is on you to prove the rationality of letting people go hungry or die of curable diseases so that other people -some of them parasites leeching off the productive forces in society- can cling greedily to money they don't need.

Neoliberalism, as a comparatively recent phenomenon, has given the selfish and the inhumane an opportunity to come out into the open and ground their selfishness in ideology, masking them as a coherent and legitimate viewpoint.

In these trying times many forget the most vital maxim of all: "mind your own goddamn business."

No person, organization or corporation deserves help or hindrance from the State. Taxes should be abolished and the government reduced to nothing but an army for purposes of national defense and a mint for the production of currency.

Everything else will come out in the aggregate...

No person, organization or corporation deserves help or hindrance from the State.

Why?

You can't give an objective, rational argument for this. All you can do is appeal to novel, highly subjective "values", which are nothing more than an excuse for inhumane selfishness, wrapped in some intenable claim of universality.

I couldn't possibly see any rational argument for the creation of a system that supports the weak; i.e. those that cannot support themselves.

Furthermore, I implied no inherent values, ideals or morals in my system. The system I propose is valueless. Success or failure would be determined by personal action.

Additionally, selfishness is the way of the world, whether or not the rose-colored glasses your quixotic ideals give you allow you to see it.

The system I propose is valueless. Success or failure would be determined by personal action.

If you say that it is a better system than any other, it is no longer valueless.

val·ue Pronunciation[val-yoo]

....

10. values, Sociology. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.

What I meant is that it is a purely objective system that ignores humanity's affections, prejudices and desires by removing an authority telling them what their wants and needs are. This allows them to sort things out for themselves.

Thus, allowing people to be truly free.

I implied no inherent values, ideals or morals in my system. The system I propose is valueless. Success or failure would be determined by personal action.

Hardly. It's premised on the "value" that only the strong deserve to survive - a throwback to 19th century Social Darwinism. It's also premised on the "value" that individual "freedom" trumps all other considerations, including any organised attempt to render the application of that freedom more meaningful in practice.


Additionally, selfishness is the way of the world.

Nope. That just shows your ignorance. Throughout history and throughout the world even today, most societies have been grounded on a strong (and deeply interiorised) sense of mutual obligation. The examples I know best are in the Pacific. I could cite the inati system of Tokelau (when you produce ressources, you share them freely with everyone on the basis of need), the ethos of mutual assistance still found in most parts of Melanesia (including the deep-felt view that it is unthinkable not to provide assistance to someone in need), or the traditional system of society among Australian Aboriginals.

I find it frustrating that so many people claim Western capitalist selfishness and extremist individualism as something "universal", when anyone with at least a basic knowledge of the wider world knows that it most definitely is not.

What I meant is that it is a purely objective system that ignores humanity's affections, prejudices and desires by removing an authority telling them what their wants and needs are.

So everyone can do whatever they want? No? Oops. Guess you are telling them what to do after all.

I didn't say intrinsic evil.


Whats the difference? There is no such thing as being intrinsically wrong in politics, it's STILL relative.

And if you define democracy as not having a dictator, then there is no dictator to regulate the economy.

Therefore, democracy is on the extreme right.

Well, in my opinion it's impossible to regulate the economy without a state, or something which you may not call a state, but is a state just the same.

Rational argument? You're not arguing on the basis of reason. You simply state your view that a person's "right" not to be taxed is more important than any other person's right to access the basic necessities for survival. There's nothing rational about that. And nothing human, either.

If you are going to state such views and then talk about reason, the onus is on you to prove the rationality of letting people go hungry or die of curable diseases so that other people -some of them parasites leeching off the productive forces in society- can cling greedily to money they don't need.

Neoliberalism, as a comparatively recent phenomenon, has given the selfish and the inhumane an opportunity to come out into the open and ground their selfishness in ideology, masking them as a coherent and legitimate viewpoint.

Again, this is such flippant nonsense I don't know where to begin. You are arguing against a straw man, capitalists do not want people to not have the basic necessities of life. Capitalists just feel that their system is far more effective then other systems. Lowering taxes and getting more people to work for money is just a means to an end, they don't want masses of poor people, in fact a more wealthy population benefits big business. Every wealthy government pretty much relies on these capitalist principles to survive, though many tend to water them down.

I would say (and I did) Far Left for the most part, but I do support some moderate and right of center economic things, like joint private-public cooperation in things like Space and Free Trade between Free and Democratic countries.

I did a test once that had multiple things on a Left-Right axis, and it showed me as 50/50 on Defence and 75% conservative on Personal Responsibilities, so there's that to.

I am 100% liberal on social issues though, well except affirmative action.

Rational argument? You're not arguing on the basis of reason.
Says you, followed by a bunch of appeals to emotion. You're saying others have a right to what I produce, I ask you to justify it, you refuse.

If you are going to state such views and then talk about reason, the onus is on you to prove the rationality of letting people go hungry or die of curable diseases so that other people -some of them parasites leeching off the productive forces in society- can cling greedily to money they don't need.
It's quite simple: Human beings are in fact singular organisms, which can (and usually do) choose to live with each other in order to specialise and maximise their personal well-being.

What is the ultimate goal of a human being while on earth? Achieve happiness.
How does it do that? Firstly it survives, secondly it achieves something that it sets out to achieve (guided by its moral code or its preferences).
How does it do that? Well, a big part of it is to transform the physical environment so it suits them better. In other words: progress*.

The real question is how you get out of that the conviction that people have an obligation to violate their ultimate goal for the sake of others. If I have money, that is because my moral goals were such that I set out to achieve in the world of material goods and services, by providing value to those who would trade value in return. I worked toward my happiness, and I achieved it (at least temporarily, before I come up with another goal).

Now you come along, telling me that your priorities don't lie in the material, that you don't have the desire or the will to provide value to others. I answer: "Fine, do as you please."

And you say: "No, you don't understand: I don't want to achieve material wealth, but I'll take your achievement and use it for my purposes. And if you disagree, well, you know what happens. My happiness trumps your happiness, because I want it to be so."

You're sacrificing people. Whether you take half of someone's income, or half of the time someone worked on earning it makes no difference. You're hurting one as a sacrifice to another, in the full knowledge that alms don't solve problems, they only cover up symptoms - and even more cynically: that there will always be another lamb to sacrifice later. Your entire idea is based on using those who are not satisfied with the here and now, who don't expect handouts and who want to achieve material wealth as a means to improving their lives - and you let them (grudgingly), until one day you start harvesting.

Oh, and regarding productive forces: There is only one such force, and that's the rational mind. A factory worker who doesn't think is not adding anything to society, he consumes as much as he makes. The reason that his muscle spasms even produce that much is because someone invented a machine, a factory, a product that vastly increased his productivity, without him having to do a thing.

Neoliberalism, as a comparatively recent phenomenon, has given the selfish and the inhumane an opportunity to come out into the open and ground their selfishness in ideology, masking them as a coherent and legitimate viewpoint.
So then, argue to the contrary. I don't want to hear that I'm selfish: I know it. I don't want to hear that I'm inhumane: I don't think you know what it is to be human.

I want to hear why you think you can decide over my happiness, and regard me as a means to some unspecified end, without my approval or even as much as consulting me.

*Precisely the progress that these primitive societies lack. I would rather like to see what life would be like there without aid payments, tourists and the connection to the world economy. But hey, the weather will be nice. And 40 years in poverty (but covered up by a mystic state of half-reality, without understanding of the world or a way to make it better) is surely better than 80 years of trading value for value and knowing how the world works.

Hardly. It's premised on the "value" that only the strong deserve to survive - a throwback to 19th century Social Darwinism.
Actually, it's the premise that in order to survive, you can't choose to ignore that which makes you strong. A throwback to the Enlightenment and ancient Greece - and reality.

It's also premised on the "value" that individual "freedom" trumps all other considerations, including any organised attempt to render the application of that freedom more meaningful in practice.
We actually agree on that one. Any attempt to "render freedom meaningful" by some third party is a contradiction though: you can't violate freedom to make people free.

Nope. That just shows your ignorance. Throughout history and throughout the world even today, most societies have been grounded on a strong (and deeply interiorised) sense of mutual obligation.
Like a market?

The examples I know best are in the Pacific. I could cite the inati system of Tokelau (when you produce ressources, you share them freely with everyone on the basis of need), the ethos of mutual assistance still found in most parts of Melanesia (including the deep-felt view that it is unthinkable not to provide assistance to someone in need), or the traditional system of society among Australian Aboriginals.
And in all of those, if you're lazy you get in trouble with the others. Which implies that it's not merely need and not merely a one-sided obligation, but that a trade is occuring: I work in the expectation that others do the same.

Which implies that my working for you is conditional, which implies a choice I have about my work. Which implies that I have in fact the right to decide, and not you.

Face it, no mutualist society is actually an argument against property rights or even against capitalism (unless you want to argue material outcomes, in which case you might want to look somewhere else). If I wrote a contract that specified terms precisely like the inati system, and the two of us signed it, would that prove that we didn't have the right to sign that contract (and thus decide about why, where, how and when we work) in the first place?

Something like the inati system can in fact be a market outcome. We live in market economies, but within our families we operate closer to mutualism.

Capitalism cannot be a socialist, or mutualist outcome. Why? Because once you are in such a society it is presumed that your right to your labour is conditional upon the whims of others. Any trade you make would have to be approved by people who have nothing to do with it. If we lived on that island, and decided to trade a boat for $100, and someone else came along because he needed that boat, we'd have to actually justify ourselves, meaning we never really had the right to trade in the first place.

Nice winnage leonstein! Too bad ariddia isn't around to see it.

Says you, followed by a bunch of appeals to emotion. You're saying others have a right to what I produce, I ask you to justify it, you refuse.

They have a right, because no sane and humane system can decree that your right to the superfluous trumps someone else's right to the basic necessities of survival. If you deny that, then you can't appeal to any kind of ethic or rights. It's utterly hypocritical and self-contradictory to say you have certain rights if other people are denied the right to survive.


How does it do that? Well, a big part of it is to transform the physical environment so it suits them better. In other words: progress*.
*Precisely the progress that these primitive societies lack. I would rather like to see what life would be like there without aid payments, tourists and the connection to the world economy. But hey, the weather will be nice. And 40 years in poverty (but covered up by a mystic state of half-reality, without understanding of the world or a way to make it better) is surely better than 80 years of trading value for value and knowing how the world works.

If you think that "primitive societies" (as you call them) didn't transform their environment to suit their needs, you're very wrong. Aboriginals, for example, reshaped the Australian landscape to a significant extent by controlled bush fires, designed to aid the growing of certain plants they needed.

However, the Victorian concept of "progress" did not exist in Pacific societies prior to contact with the Western world. They had a concept of history, but not the same as ours: based on genealogy (legitimating land rights, for example) and preserving the useful knowledge of the past, rather than rejecting it and looking towards a transformed future. They transformed their surroundings to meet their needs, but generally succeeded in not over-exploiting ressources - unlike us, who have descended into a spiral of unsustainable and environmentally catastrophic exploitation. In that sense, they were a lot smarter than we are. (The only exception I can think of in the Pacific is Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants did over-exploit their ressources... with predictable results.)

Your premise that these peoples would live in poverty were it not for westernisation is premised on gross ignorance. They coped very well for thousands of years without capitalism. They had their own economic system, in which there was (with periodic exceptions in some islands, such as parts of Kiribati) no poverty, no want, no hunger. Contrary to what ignorant Westerners seem to think, they knew and practiced agriculture (Papuans may have been the first people in the world to invent agriculture). They produced enough to meet their needs comfortably, and shared it around in times of need. Their societies were not perfect, but your simplistic arrogant ignorance is misplaced.


Now you come along, telling me that your priorities don't lie in the material, that you don't have the desire or the will to provide value to others. I answer: "Fine, do as you please."

I never said any such thing. I work, "providing value to others" as you put it, in exchange for a salary that enables me to live. I'm not attracted by a consumer society, however. I very rarely buy anything that I don't need.

Nor did I ever say that people should be able to opt not to work, and then expect hand-outs. Clearly they should not.


And you say: "No, you don't understand: I don't want to achieve material wealth, but I'll take your achievement and use it for my purposes. And if you disagree, well, you know what happens. My happiness trumps your happiness, because I want it to be so."

I'm not sure whether you've actually managed to convince yourself that I said that (or anything even remotely ressembling it), or whether you're being unashamedly hypocritical. I suspect a combination of both.


You're sacrificing people.

That's rich, coming from you. You argue that people should be left to starve or die of curable diseases if they can't fend for themselves, then you tell me I'm sacrificing people because I say that taxation is justifiable on humanitarian grounds.


Your entire idea is based on using those who are not satisfied with the here and now, who don't expect handouts and who want to achieve material wealth as a means to improving their lives - and you let them (grudgingly), until one day you start harvesting.


Rubbish. If someone wants to achieve wealth, that's their right. They simply have to factor in their obligation to the most needy in the society they live in. Ideally, they would also consider their own ecological footprint, and temper their consumerism and selfishness accordingly - if only for the well-being of their own children and grand-children.

Nor have I ever said or implied that those who work should be "harvested" in favour of those who refuse to work; quite the contrary. If you're poor and struggling and you need assistance, you should give something back to the society that's helping you, by accepting job offers when there are some.

It's sadly symptomatic of your simplistic ideology that you've never even stopped to consider those who work hard or want to work yet are desperately poor.


Oh, and regarding productive forces: There is only one such force, and that's the rational mind. A factory worker who doesn't think is not adding anything to society, he consumes as much as he makes. The reason that his muscle spasms even produce that much is because someone invented a machine, a factory, a product that vastly increased his productivity, without him having to do a thing.


Nonsense. The owner of the machine needs the worker, and would be hopeless without him. And you speak as if employers were great inventors. The machines used by employers weren't invented by those employers. Are you saying now that an employer is never a productive force?


And in all of those, if you're lazy you get in trouble with the others. Which implies that it's not merely need and not merely a one-sided obligation, but that a trade is occuring: I work in the expectation that others do the same.


I agree completely. And I find it sad that you're unable to realise we agree on this. It means you're not able to consider the poverty and need of people who do work - or want to.


Face it, no mutualist society is actually an argument against property rights or even against capitalism

That very much depends on your definition. Such societies are, essentially, communist in the original sense of that concept. Property rights do not exist in any meaningful sense in such societies. Most of what is produced is perishable. It is either used immediately or redistributed, shared freely.

Take those Melanesian societies founded on the "big man" or "big woman" system, for example. A person who is able to produce a lot (through his own efforts, or by calling in obligations from relatives or neighbours) will acquire status and influence (albeit not "power" or "authority" in the Western sense) by organising feasts and restributing his produce to as many people as possible. It is self-serving, yes, but there are no "property rights", no "capitalism" there.

And before you argue that such a system does not constitute communal solidarity, Melanesian societies are also founded on the principle that you do not allow a member of your society to go hungry or sick without assistance. You help them, because they are in need. You then expect them to be productive members of the community (if they're able to), but you don't just turn your back on them and let them die (as you'd want people to do in your "ideal" society).


(unless you want to argue material outcomes, in which case you might want to look somewhere else). If I wrote a contract that specified terms precisely like the inati system, and the two of us signed it, would that prove that we didn't have the right to sign that contract (and thus decide about why, where, how and when we work) in the first place?

Something like the inati system can in fact be a market outcome. We live in market economies, but within our families we operate closer to mutualism.

Capitalism cannot be a socialist, or mutualist outcome. Why? Because once you are in such a society it is presumed that your right to your labour is conditional upon the whims of others. Any trade you make would have to be approved by people who have nothing to do with it. If we lived on that island, and decided to trade a boat for $100, and someone else came along because he needed that boat, we'd have to actually justify ourselves, meaning we never really had the right to trade in the first place.

Not the "whims" of others. Their needs. Nobody is going to tolerate whims. Your inability to distinguish between "whims" and essential needs, between people who need assistance despite working and doing their best to contribute to society, and people who don't, is probably the reason why you can't grasp what I'm saying.

I'd like you to answer this honestly. Do you genuinely not operate such a distinction, or did you simply decide to blur it hypocritically to suit your own argument?

Let's take a hypothetical. A woman in Australia comes from a poor background, starts work early to help provide for her parents and younger siblings, struggles through education and fails (due mainly to having too many other constraints on her time). Because of lack of qualifications, she becomes trapped in menial jobs. She gets married, has a child, who's born severely handicapped, requiring constant care. Her husband leaves her, or dies in an accident. She can't afford to have someone else look after her son all the time, so she stops working full-time and switches to part-time, to be with her kid as often as possible, providing him with the essential care he needs. She struggles on courageously to make ends meet. She falls seriously ill, and can't go to work for at least several months.

In your "perfect" society, there would be no taxation, because as we all know taxes infringe upon your sacred right to indulge in the superfluous, which is so much more important than other people's survival. So with no taxes, this woman and her son have no access to aid from public funds to help them through difficult times, until the woman is well enough to work again and continue struggling through her own brave efforts. Tell me, do her and her son deserve to die?

It's all very well to sit in your ivory tower and talk about lofty individual rights to selfishness. You may want to turn your back on the real world, but it exists, as do situations like that one. A great many of them. In your simplistic ideology, what is the fate of such people? What do they "deserve", in your world where selfishness is the only sacred value?

What is your political position?
In my country, I am an extremist left-wing radical. Just about anywhere else in the world, I'd be considered a moderate.

Right wing, I suppose. But right-wing in Sweden probably counts as leftist in some other countries.

Lol, you're probabily right... even the italian centre-right catholic parties look commie when compared to the US Democratic Party.

"Evil" is not an option on this poorly designed poll. :(

What is the ultimate goal of a human being while on earth? Achieve happiness.
This is by no means a closed matter. There is no conclusive argument as to the ‘goal’ of a human being’s existence.

Furthermore, ‘achieving happiness’ is a very vague goal. Does it mean the goal is to be happy at all times? Does it mean that we should feel happiness a certain proportion of our lives? Does it take into account the happiness of others; are we to create the maximum aggregate happiness, utilitarian style? Or are we to satisfy ourselves, become happy at all costs?

And so on.

Your inability to distinguish between "whims" and essential needs, between people who need assistance despite working and doing their best to contribute to society, and people who don't, is probably the reason why you can't grasp what I'm saying.

I'd like you to answer this honestly. Do you genuinely not operate such a distinction, or did you simply decide to blur it hypocritically to suit your own argument?
I honestly don't presume I have the right or the ability to make that distinction for anyone but myself.

You can build a scenario (as you duly did) where someone has a hard time through no fault of their own. If that was genuinely the case, I would consider, voluntarily, to help that lady out (if I knew her, not if she was just some anonymous blob).

Usually (and this is where you are kidding yourself) it's not like that. Usually poor people are those who didn't do well in school because they preferred to spend their time on other things. They're those who are out at parties and then out on the town every night between ages 12 to 27. They're those to prefer to measure their value by how cool they are, by how popular they are with other useless people, how much they can drink and by how little they can think of those who made their laziness possible.

Not everyone has it as easy as, say me, in school. I readily accept that, and I have always been willing to help those who asked me nicely. But what one lacks in "talent", one can make up for in hard work, as I am finding out at the moment in motorsport. Something being difficult is not, has never been and will never be an excuse not to do it. You only have to want it, and then be ready to do what it takes.

So ultimately, for most people, the choice whether to become poor or not, and more importantly whether to stay poor or not, is in fact a choice. Lots of these people grow up in environments where everything pulls them into poverty - but there is still choice. We do have a free will, and if we want to be human beings, we do have an obligation to use it.

If you use your brain, are willing to work hard if that's what it takes, and don't let yourself be distracted from your goals, you will not die poor. That's fact. No one says "I choose to be poor", but they do say "I choose to skip classes today". And that cannot possibly translate into a right to the things I do with my life, because I chose to do them and I did what was necessary.

So in short: completely involuntary poverty is rare in the Western world. It is more wide-spread in the Third World (hence my feeling that once I have the spare resources, I'll help out there). It does not translate into an obligation by me, or a claim on me. If I help, I do it voluntarily, not because I should or because I have to.

Most poverty in our countries is the result of choices. No one can make such choices for you, you make them alone. The consequences of your choices are yours to live with, not mine. If you want to suffer them, go ahead, do it. But leave the tax man out of it.

Its odd that so few people "choose" to be ridiculously rich.

Its odd that so few people "choose" to be ridiculously rich.
It is, isn't it. God only knows what's driving them.

It is, isn't it. God only knows what's driving them.

I'm guessing its aliens. That or the Devil. Possibly both.

I'm guessing its aliens. That or the Devil. Possibly both.
Maybe they just have different ideas of what makes them happy. Families, and free time and avoiding 70+ hour weeks and that stuff. To each their own, I say.

In fact, that's a great motto.

Ooh, the old 'Capitalism vs. Socialism.' Pardon. (sneezes)

Maybe they just have different ideas of what makes them happy. Families, and free time and avoiding 70+ hour weeks and that stuff. To each their own, I say.

In fact, that's a great motto.

Possibly except do people who have the same ideas of what makes them happy have equal incomes?

My political position is simply that individual 'rights' should not exist, the only 'right' I support is the social obligation and duty to serve society and all others before yourself, ultimately liberalism corrodes the social and moral framework of shared determinism in life, the higher life is the socialist life.

People must realize that liberal capitalism’s intellectual paradigm has turbo-charged the privatized, marketised economy, which is relentlessly encroaching upon the life-world of family and community, and most importantly Society. The invisible hand is clutching at the invisible heart and slowly choking it. Thus the story of liberal capitalism’s effect on the family is part of a wider view of what is happening to society. Bonds of respect, civility and trust between people are being weakened, and relations based on competition, self-interest and suspicion are growing.

As the ancient Greeks knew, politics was about harmony within the society, and they knew that any system built on conflicting interests would inevitably destroy social cohesion and break down into partisan groupings of the polity. For the ancient Greeks, the word political meant ‘of the city’, ‘of the polis’, the institution (social) in which people lived their lives. Aristotle’s truth was that humans are born to live in complex organization with his or her fellow citizens, in community and harmony, through harmony not struggle and competition, and united through a common purpose, which is to live a shared life. For Aristotle, the community exists for a good purpose. It is the environment in which people can live ‘the good life’ –a life of high moral and ethical purpose through which alone they can achieve true happiness. All associations are formed to achieve some purpose, but the political community – ‘the society’ – is the supreme association embracing all others and having as it’s aim the supreme good.

So, in Aristotle’s view, the society is not merely good, but exists for the highest good, the best life possible for mankind. Socialists recognize that those aforementioned anti-social forces can make societies disintegrate, when they fail to achieve the good purpose which, according to socialism, nature has allotted them. When natural beings are working according to their proper functions, they are direct towards achieving a good purpose, that is value within the society.

Therefore a person whose individual nature is always to quarrel rather than to co-operate with others is, according to socialists, out of tune with nature itself. Such a person is not really a human being. For socialists, the true state of being is to live together in a political community. The activity of ensuring the smooth and harmonious functioning of that community is called ‘politics’, and is the highest and most worthy activity. So for socialists, politics does not imply intrigue, conspiracy, corruption or injustice. It means cooperation in unity and fellowship.

Possibly except do people who have the same ideas of what makes them happy have equal incomes?
Obviously not. There are lots of other factors involved. It's sorta like a trend in statistics: it tells you the direction, and you can even use it to make some rough guesstimations, but there's lots of deviations (some random, some not so) involved too.

Libertarian
Far-Right, Economically
Far-Left, Socially

Libertarian. I could go in to more specifics, but ultimately my politics are based primarily on ad-hoc libertarianism.

My political position is simply that individual 'rights' should not exist

Very nice...

the only 'right' I support is the social obligation and duty to serve society and all others before yourself

No.

Therefore a person whose individual nature is always to quarrel rather than to co-operate with others is, according to socialists, out of tune with nature itself. Such a person is not really a human being.

If only more socialists were as honest as you.

If only more socialists were as honest as you.

EA speaks only for himself, however often he talks about what "socialists" supposedly think.

EA speaks only for himself, however often he talks about what "socialists" supposedly think.

Figures.

Very nice...



No.



If only more socialists were as honest as you.

That's because most self-styled 'socialists' are soft and don't understand that is socialism is to be maintained all those who profess individual rights and freedoms above the collective will must be 'removed' from society.

That's because most self-styled 'socialists' are soft and don't understand that is socialism is to be maintained all those who profess individual rights and freedoms above the collective will must be 'removed' from society.

Wow, you sound like a libertarian parody of socialism. Congrats.

Actually, on a philosophical level, I agree with Eureka Australis. Yes, we should stop thinking in terms of individual "rights". All rights are social constructs. Yes, all people have a social obligation and duty to serve society and all others before themselves. Yes, individualists are an expression of the darkest and most evil aspects of humanity and should be removed from society.

But - here's the catch - there is no method to accurately determine who is an individualist and who isn't. Yes, some beliefs are evil and people who hold those beliefs should not be tolerated, but there is no way to really know what a person actually believes. Totalitarian methods have proven to be an abject failure; they do not weed out individualists, but merely encourage them to pretend to be collectivists until they can attain positions of power and destroy the system from within (e.g. Deng Xiaoping, Mikhail Gorbachev).

Totalitarianism is not morally wrong; but it is extremely ineffective. I'd rather have my enemies out in the open where I can see them and fight them; that is much better than forcing them to pretend to be my friends only to stab me in the back later.

The individualist enemies of Mankind must be allowed - even encouraged - to expose themselves for what they are. Therefore I strongly uphold freedom of speech and expression in practice, even if it is not the ideal solution.

Extreme Left. I support Anarchism.

That's because most self-styled 'socialists' are soft and don't understand that is socialism is to be maintained all those who profess individual rights and freedoms above the collective will must be 'removed' from society.

Sounds more like National Socialism, it must be said...