Your ideological evolution.

[Anonymous]

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?

[1714015972]

1714015972

[1714015972]

1714015972

[BookofNick]

I've long considered myself a libertarian, but until recently I believed in small government. Now I believe in no government. Yes, I'm an anarchist. No I don't think disorder is good. I am an anarchist based on the non-aggression principle. That is, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another person. Any other political party may be more or less just based on how much force (I.e law) is used, but only with the elimination of government can we eliminate institutionalized violence.

If you are interested in learning more, the best resource that I've found for honest discussion is http://www.freedomainradio.com

[extracool]

I like this:

The Constitution of the Universe
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.

The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:

* * *
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

The Constitution of the Universe rests on six axioms:
1. Values exist only relative to life.

2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.

3. The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious individual.

4. Morals relate only to conscious individuals.

5. Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.

6. Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by competitively producing values for them.

[myrkul]

I liked it up until Axiom 4.

All it takes is one court hearing to be declared 'Not conscious", and then all bets are off.

If you doubt me, read H. Beam Piper's 'Little Fuzzy' (it's public domain now)

[realnowhereman]

Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

Article 2 is redundant.  Article 1 says no one shall initiate force; therefore force may be used if you don't initiate it.

Article 3 is redundant.  Since Article 1 and 2 don't list any exceptions then there aren't any.

Article 1 is excellent and is the standard libertarian non-aggression principle.   It's basis may be found in the more fundamental philosophy which turns up everywhere: the golden rule, expressed in many different ways:

Do as thy woulc be done by.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

[smellyBobby]

Bought up capitalist. Taught that governments are in-efficient, tax-cuts are the only true way for economic growth, the state is bad, but markets are good(later realized institutions are needed to establish the market, so the market is dependent upon institutions..... contradiction). Met someone from Scandinavia; big government but where freedom of information is more important than economic growth.

ATM i don't know really.

I know people are only concerned with the welfare of between 5-7 people and suck with comprehending the meaning of large numbers.
(I assume this based on a study showing that people can only handle 5-7 items in their mind at once, and observing things like people have greater concern with say the deaths in Japan (something like 10,000 i think), but not as much concern with the 2004 boxing day tsunami killing 200,000 people, the 3000 Sep 11 deaths compared with the 100,000 Iraqi deaths).

I believe that best empirical metric of an Ideology is its ability to preserve Woman's rights
I would argue that half the population is born into a position of coercive disadvantage despite being intellectually equal. A system that guarantee's the rights of half the population despite being born into coercive disadvantage is, by current-day standards an amazing feat. Also I believe(I think there is research showing) that there is a strong link between economic growth and Woman's rights.

I believe in the ongoing pursuit of a state known as "Ideal information exchange". The foundation of a Society is built upon the never-ending pursuit of sharing all forms of human information(economic, cultural, social, etc) to improve the welfare of all citizens in society.


[Rant]

I define "Ideal Information Exchange" as a hypothetical situation, where the quality and quantity of information being exchanged within society is perfect.

To me information is an abstract notion. A parcel information is an abstract object "in between" many different states of energy. Therefore this would be an expression of Society's ability to interact and manipulate multiple levels and multiple forms of energy. Therefore this would be a reasonable measure of Society's ability to handle the environment.

When I say information in this context, I mean the existence of markets to facilitate the flow of economic information, not just free-press, etc.

IMO an entity's ability is survive is proportional to it's ability to assume many different configurations of energy.

[Grant]

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?

I used to be "mainstream" right-wing (or capitalist as we call them), until i discovered the insane level of corruption that the system we have enables upto highest level of government (anywhere in the world).

Since then i got first misled by "truthers" (and i thank mostly to GW Bush adminstration for their screwup on that one) for a little while to then rediscover capitalism as its supposed to work: the free market. Obviously that led me towards the Austrian School. After a while i did however discover some of the flaws with austrian school, i did side with Bill Still when it comes to the question of the function of money (its just a contract it doesnt need a backing, as opposed to the austrian view of some shit gotta back it) but after a while i also discovered Stefan Molenoux which made me a minarchist (not a full anarchist).

I guess my current position is nanorchist (if such term exist), i believe what we know as government or country should be replaced with competing NGO's (either for profit or non-profit), those roles include road building, healthcare, education, police, defence. I don't see any reason why those roles couldnt be in a constant state of "electionless-democracy", everyone chooses their provider and the provider that attracts most people grows largest. (i guess i have an uncapability to declare myself anarchist because that term often is associated with chaos). As for borders that one i have still a problem with i tend to side with native-americans, and claim the land belongs to the creator and we just "rent it", it makes land hoarding less desirable and country founding obsolete.

My ultimate political-problem was the currency, but bitcoin took care of that one

[DATA COMMANDER]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

[myrkul]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

[Anonymous]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

You don't own yourself. You're subject to the whims and desires of your fellow man. Submit yourself to the hivemind.

[DATA COMMANDER]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

I respectfully disagree. It's a controversial topic. Feel free to make book recommendations, though.

[smellyBobby]

I also disagree. Whenever two entities interact with one another and effect the environment, then what set of rules are used to assign the "causality of change" upon the environment caused by the interaction of the two entities?

[myrkul]

I respectfully disagree. It's a controversial topic. Feel free to make book recommendations, though.

Well, Let's start at the start, shall we?
Or, we could go a little more modern, if you prefer.

For that matter, anything here will be good.

I also disagree. Whenever two entities interact with one another and effect the environment, then what set of rules are used to assign the "causality of change" upon the environment caused by the interaction of the two entities?

Once more, in English?

Let me see if I can translate... If two people do something, who decides who owns the result? Yes? Did I decipher it correctly?

Simple: They do. Between them, with no outside interference.

[smellyBobby]

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

[myrkul]

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

[smellyBobby]

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered.

[myrkul]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered.

And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle, then you'll understand if I choose not to work with you without a very detailed contract?

[smellyBobby]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered.

And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle, then you'll understand if I choose not to work with you without a very detailed contract?

Huh, um not quite sure what your saying but I'll try.

And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle,

Yes, I don't think everyone will follow this non-initiation of force, this will never be possible.

I don't quite get the next part, are you saying that an agreement upon a mutual contract is used this situation before establishing a partnership ?

[qbg]

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

It becomes slightly slippery with the fact that those rules were violated in places in the past.

[myrkul]

Yes, I don't think everyone will follow this non-initiation of force, this will never be possible.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

It becomes slightly slippery with the fact that those rules were violated in places in the past.
[/quote]

So, because there are criminals, a civilized society is impossible?