Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
April 07, 2013, 09:43:44 PM |
|
The days of 'left' or 'right' will be over in days/months/(probably a few years).
'left or right' has turned into a farce these last decades, corruption rife, with either side just being the same pawns of the banksters, they will be discarded and thrown out in time to come. In the UK these last few years we have seen an unprecendented about of by-elections (meaning that MP's have either stood down, been forced to retire, and a few actually locked up), this is due to their corruption and it being found and shown (in some cases they've been the 'fall-out' man/woman for the higher powers coughcameroncoughroyalfamilycough).
Considering this .. what is your view on the new 'political scale'? Will there be one? How will it be measured? Will it be measured? Or will new divisions and categories be created?
My thoughts is that new categories will be created, the left and right thrown out. I have thoughts on this, but I am curious as to others thoughts without putting my own down first (which may or may not influence others thoughts).
this dichotomy will begin to be cast more and more in its true light. Left and right is a cover for the real dichotomy here, individualism vs collectivism. People will begin to shed the titles of left and right and more accurately label what they have always been attempting to articulate as collectivism and individualism.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 07, 2013, 10:08:31 PM |
|
The days of 'left' or 'right' will be over in days/months/(probably a few years).
'left or right' has turned into a farce these last decades, corruption rife, with either side just being the same pawns of the banksters, they will be discarded and thrown out in time to come. In the UK these last few years we have seen an unprecendented about of by-elections (meaning that MP's have either stood down, been forced to retire, and a few actually locked up), this is due to their corruption and it being found and shown (in some cases they've been the 'fall-out' man/woman for the higher powers coughcameroncoughroyalfamilycough).
Considering this .. what is your view on the new 'political scale'? Will there be one? How will it be measured? Will it be measured? Or will new divisions and categories be created?
My thoughts is that new categories will be created, the left and right thrown out. I have thoughts on this, but I am curious as to others thoughts without putting my own down first (which may or may not influence others thoughts).
this dichotomy will begin to be cast more and more in its true light. Left and right is a cover for the real dichotomy here, individualism vs collectivism. People will begin to shed the titles of left and right and more accurately label what they have always been attempting to articulate as collectivism and individualism. Except some collectivists want you to only have sex the "right way" and don't want you to have specific plants, and others don't want you to smoke, or own specific configurations of metal parts.
|
|
|
|
Jobe7 (OP)
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Now they are thinking what to do with me
|
|
April 07, 2013, 10:55:35 PM |
|
It will be an interesting mess
|
|
|
|
J0EJ0EJ0E
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
April 08, 2013, 04:28:18 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Ekaros
|
|
April 08, 2013, 04:37:20 AM |
|
Also left-right is relative to country. From European viewpoint USA seems to be right-far right on the scale.
More exact labels would be good, but in some ways they might be rather far from real politics and misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 08, 2013, 04:50:38 AM |
|
Also left-right is relative to country. From European viewpoint USA seems to be right-far right on the scale.
More exact labels would be good, but in some ways they might be rather far from real politics and misunderstood.
The only real politics are the politics that take place outside the farm.
|
|
|
|
haitispaceagency
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Coinlancer.io ICO | Oct 14th
|
|
April 08, 2013, 01:52:31 PM |
|
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
|
|
|
|
rta
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
|
|
April 09, 2013, 10:49:33 PM |
|
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
How do Bitcoin fit in that view?
|
|
|
|
liberty90
Member
Offline
Activity: 88
Merit: 10
|
|
April 09, 2013, 11:32:56 PM |
|
Libertarian, in the anarcho-capitalist sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
antibanker
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
April 09, 2013, 11:35:25 PM |
|
my standing is that zionism is anything but helpful ... to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 09, 2013, 11:40:35 PM |
|
If u aren't conservative you just haven't grown up yet.
How do Bitcoin fit in that view? Fascism appeals to me more than any thing else.
|
|
|
|
Ella
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 31
Merit: 0
|
|
April 09, 2013, 11:47:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 09, 2013, 11:57:05 PM |
|
Libertarian socialist, though I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. I do think there should be a social safety net, but it shouldn't cost too much or be too comfortable for the lazy. I have to admit to voting mostly for Democrats, even though they are increasingly disgusting.
I think philosophy may be more useful an indicator than politics, because politics, at least in America, is absolutely fucked right now. I'm a preference utilitarian in the mold of Jeremy Bentham or, more recently, Peter Singer. The best social policies are those which leave people alone as much as possible, so that they can satisfy their personal preferences. It shouldn't be up to the state to decide what preferences are "good" or to make moral decisions or protect people from themselves.
So, for instance, if a drug addict wants to shoot smack until he dies, he should be allowed to do so, though it might be useful for society to offer some kind of voluntary rehab at no or low cost, because losing a potentially useful person is inefficient. Spending enormous amounts of money to throw such people in prison is completely useless.
Similarly, qualified people should get no or low cost education, at least in something useful, because that's efficient. Even if 9 out of 10 people go on to some undistinguished work in a field like math or science, it's a total waste for a potential Einstein to end up as a pizza delivery guy for lack of education at the right time. The kind of discoveries scientists and engineers make justify spending other people's money to make sure we don't waste an Einstein.
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 10, 2013, 12:03:32 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%?
|
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:21:27 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live.
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:29:55 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live. Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:50:19 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live. Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state. Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand.
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:55:16 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live. Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state. Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand. hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 10, 2013, 02:01:17 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live. Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state. Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand. hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_CityI remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it.
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
April 10, 2013, 02:20:41 AM |
|
I do agree with the libertarian idea that taxation is ultimately coercive and a use of force to take something from people who would probably not voluntarily give it. But I don't agree that this means it should never be done. It should be done, but only in a democratic process and only when the bang is worth the buck. Governments currently take too much and provide too little.
So, how many people does it take to decide how much of your money they should take? Everyone but you? 99%? 51%? Good question. Every society sets the bar differently. There are some that don't. A good example is Somalia. For some reason, those societies rarely feature on any list of good places to live. Its a very bad example if you are attempting to portray a society with out taxation in a negative light. It certainly doesnt make sense to compare somolia to Finland or Sweden or w/e is supposed to be a socialist utopia since Somalia has little capital accumulation. You should instead compare Somalia today to Somalia 10 years ago if you want a meaningful point of reference and conditions in Somalia have been rapidly improving ever since the fall of their state. Best cell reception north of Johannesburg, or so I am given to understand. hey myrkul have you ever seen this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_CityI remember hearing briefly about it, probably in a Neal Stephenson book, but this is the first I'd actually looked closely at it. its so beautiful... and ugly... and beautiful. The physical manifestation of anarchy. That picture fills me with so many emotions.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
|