ATTN, Von Zwietracht & other libertariantards

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Fr'instance, Noam Chomsky would be defined as an anarcho-socialist.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

Anarchy implies lack of government.  Humans cannot behave without government.  It's the way we're wired.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

Anarchy implies lack of government.  Humans cannot behave without government.  It's the way we're wired.

yea, the idea works more on a small-scale democracy and commune type thing, so it's got holes and potential for fuck uppery, because humans.

I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.

Political Compass thinks I am an Anarcho-Socialist, but it's weighting is so damned American, and i am a filthy euro-socialist, so...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.

So, American domestic policy, circa 1933-1979.

[Pergamos]

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

I don't think so.  Anarcho means no government.  Anarcho-socialist usually means that there's no government and things are controlled by groups on the local level.  Unions and so forth.  Nobody owns anything privately, things are owned by the people in general and used and taken care of by individuals.

Personally I prefer mutualism, which allows for personal property but not rent seeking, but that also doesn't make room for a government.  If you are in favor of a government, including a benign government that makes surepeople are fed and housed and not being raped or stolen from but otherwise stays out of the way, then you are not an Anarchist. 

[von]

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

Anarchy implies lack of government.  Humans cannot behave without government.  It's the way we're wired.

yea, the idea works more on a small-scale democracy and commune type thing, so it's got holes and potential for fuck uppery, because humans.

I lean in that direction but I'm critical of it, seeing how commune style existence can suck, but on a larger scale I favour a safety net, representation of workers within their own fields/companies, and generally respecting the rights and privacy of citizens. It's marxism without the gulags and fuckery of communism.

Political Compass thinks I am an Anarcho-Socialist, but it's weighting is so damned American, and i am a filthy euro-socialist, so...

Weird you say it's "very american"...alot of americans I know who get results they don't like from that test inevitably blame it on the test being bent towards european ideals...that or loaded questions.

just interesting.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:


Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?

That seems impossible.  How would the government support its operations with no income?

Conquest.

THIS

         

Yep, just endless war and plundering.

Forever.

It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!

I

          think that endless war and plundering is already fully under way, however, you and I are somehow financing it rather than being supported by it.

Good point.

Part of that is because the corporations can no longer plunder enough overseas to satisfy their thirst for endless growth, so as they grow and merge they are looking at the populace... well, the way corporations have always looked at the populace.

In other words, the masses will always be the victims of conquest and plunder, and the "kings" will always benefit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:


Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?

That seems impossible.  How would the government support its operations with no income?

Conquest.

THIS

         

Yep, just endless war and plundering.

Forever.

It's ALMOST as nice as Somalia!

I

          think that endless war and plundering is already fully under way, however, you and I are somehow financing it rather than being supported by it.

Good point.

Part of that is because the corporations can no longer plunder enough overseas to satisfy their thirst for endless growth, so as they grow and merge they are looking at the populace... well, the way corporations have always looked at the populace.

In other words, the masses will always be the victims of conquest and plunder, and the "kings" will always benefit.

I'd say that most of the plundering is done inside our borders, just like Rome used to do.

Except instead of legions, we use Goldman Sachs and CCA.

[von]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

This has taken some time to think about...

Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.

Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.

You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.

You know what's worse than a Libpretendian?

A goddamn moral relativist, that's the fuck what.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And what happened to HIM, smart guy?   

[Salty]

Another perfectly good conversation ruined by Star Wars.

[von]

Another perfectly good conversation ruined by Star Wars.

Whats ruined? Things can continue quite easily: obi-wans statement is itself an absolute, and therefore if his implication is that siths are bad, then his statement is self defeating.

[The Johnny]

I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! 

[von]

I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! 

So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I declare this night's season of Troll Jousting open, tournament brackets to be announced! 

So how is this gonna work? I mean, do the competitors have to troll each other or do the competitors have to find a forum, infiltrate and troll it and then be judged on the lulz produced? I find the latter to sound more fun...

We used to do the second one, but after the great collective assburger of 2009, we mostly just do the former.