Where are people on the political spectrum?

[abandonconflict]

Is this a valuable principle? What does it accomplish? How does it redeem the foreseeable consequence of continual challenge stagnating the system by shutting down its capacity to function?

Is there any difference between that directive and "if you see a sand castle ... kick it!"? cn

You misunderstand my meaning. It is better articulated by Noam Chomsky.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

 

[cannabineer]

You misunderstand my meaning. It is better articulated by Noam Chomsky.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

OK, but "should" (or the equivalent "has to") doesn't feed the bulldog. I'm seeing a moral principle being proposed, but is it one that is consistent with what we know of human history? (I suggest not, but am willing to be convinced by actual working examples ...) cn

 

[Doer]

Nah. Get a life. Honor the hierarchy....before it's too late. Anarchism? What? It's a way of thought, not governance, at all. Is that all you got? How can there be anarchy if there is authority?

So stupid. Do you think we spent hundreds of years and millions of lifetimes to have a system that can be dismantled just because some Marxist says that, "it should be...?" What burden of proof? What claptrap!

There is no such thing as anarchy. It is not allowed. You are allowed to think whatever way, but dismantle? Oh, Hell no.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

 

[abandonconflict]

OK, but "should" (or the equivalent "has to") doesn't feed the bulldog. I'm seeing a moral principle being proposed, but is it one that is consistent with what we know of human history? (I suggest not, but am willing to be convinced by actual working examples ...) cn

"Today's problems can not be solved if we still think the way we thought when we created them."
~Albert Einstein


We've done this before.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nah. Get a life. Honor the hierarchy....before it's too late.

Providence can not exist in the absence of hope.

 

[Doer]

In Honor there is Hope. I know nothing of Providence.

 

[abandonconflict]

In Honor there is Hope. I know nothing of Providence.

To honor is not necessarily honor. I did not capitalize providence, capitalized, it has different meaning.

I did capitalize, but only because it began the statement, not because I meant to imply divine providence. That has different meaning.

 

[abandonconflict]

One can not be provident lacking hope.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nah. Get a life. Honor the hierarchy....before it's too late. Anarchism? What? It's a way of thought, not governance, at all. Is that all you got? How can there be anarchy if there is authority?

So stupid. Do you think we spent hundreds of years and millions of lifetimes to have a system that can be dismantled just because some Marxist says that, "it should be...?" What burden of proof? What claptrap!

There is no such thing as anarchy. It is not allowed. You are allowed to think whatever way, but dismantle? Oh, Hell no.

"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

You consent to be ruled. I'm not a Marxist, I despise Marxism. Idiot.

 

[Doer]

Read closely. I didn't say you. I know you despise Marxism. I despise all -isms. Your quote was just another -ism, to me.

Anarchism....Anachronism

But, don't we all consent to be ruled?

There are a lot of examples of those wishing to set up their own utopia. There is one in planning right now. It is to be set outside the 3 mile limit off the Golden Gate bridge. They say they will not be under the authority of the US. Nope. That's 200 miles.

It can't work. It will never work. Why? Deadly force.
Conquest. Call it what you will.

There is the example of the Indonesia. Some Oz types poured over the old maps and found, sure enough, a un-claimed atoll. So, they capitalized and dredged, etc. Built up a little casino paradise. Soon after it opened, Indonesia annexed them. They sent some deadly forces, of course.

 

[abandonconflict]

Noam Chomsky isn't a Marxist either, he's an anarchist.

Just because words ending in the suffix ism (many in the language with which we are exchanging ideas) does not mean they are not words with values pertinent to the ideas we are both expressing.

 

[Doer]

You still aren't telling us what an anarchist is. Is is a state of mind, a system of governance, or an activity?

 

[NietzscheKeen]

I'm an Anarcho-Primitivist with slightly collectivist leanings; Though I typically vote Libertarian. Used to be a Nationalist, but Richard Barrett and I had a falling out a few years back. John Zerzan is an Anarcho-Primitivist, but I find his writings to be a little incoherant sometimes. None the less, other books I've read such as "Pandora's Seed" have shaped my political philosophy. Nihilistic Anarcho-Primitivism seems to be the most natural political philosophy for humans; but that's just opinion of course.

The only problem I have with communism is that it holds the labor theory of value at it's core. It's a flawed theory in my opinion.

 

[abandonconflict]

You still aren't telling us what an anarchist is. Is is a state of mind, a system of governance, or an activity?

Hierarchy = in the box. Don't look for anarchists in that box bro.

Just call me a utopian and forget about it, easier that way. It's true anyway.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm an Anarcho-Primitivist with slightly collectivist leanings; Though I typically vote Libertarian. Used to be a Nationalist, but Richard Barrett and I had a falling out a few years back. John Zerzan is an Anarcho-Primitivist, but I find his writings to be a little incoherant sometimes. None the less, other books I've read such as "Pandora's Seed" have shaped my political philosophy. Nihilistic Anarcho-Primitivism seems to be the most natural political philosophy for humans; but that's just opinion of course.

The only problem I have with communism is that it holds the labor theory of value at it's core. It's a flawed theory in my opinion.

WTF are you doing on a computer?!!!?!??1!!?!?!one?!!1??!eleven

 

[Dr Kynes]

WTF are you doing on a computer?!!!?!??1!!?!?!one?!!1??!eleven

he didnt say he was a Luddite.
maybe he uses an Amiga 2000 or a Tandy with a i486sx.

even the Amish have approved those.

 

[Rancho Cucamonga]

Radical Centrist here. cn

That's called an oxymoron.

 

[SnakeByte]

Found this thing that seems at least a little accurate: The Political Compass
They DO NOT ask for name, age, or sex.
Basically a 6 page survey on whether or not you strongly disagree/agree with statements provided.

A Few Examples:
-Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
-Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
and
-The rich are too highly taxed.

This will then show you where you stand politically on a Cartesian plane (four quadrant graph).


Here is mine.
Economic Left: -4.62
Social Libertarian: -3.85

And for those who might know me... Believe it or not, that's near Gandhi.

 

[canndo]

"... while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." V for Vendetta

This is intentional obfuscation of language. When the meaning of words is arbitrary, just like ideologies, they lose all meaning.

Btw, I am a classic liberal. I used to say I was a Libertarian but I think the classic liberal definition suits me better, since the meaning of Libertarian is so often mistaken.

I tend to agree with you - a true liberal is one who sees individual rights - AND governmental support for the individual as paramount in every balance between government, business and the individual citizen.


When in doubt - the citizen comes first.

 

[abandonconflict]

I tend to agree with you - a true liberal is one who sees individual rights - AND governmental support for the individual as paramount in every balance between government, business and the individual citizen.


When in doubt - the citizen comes first.

Laissez Faire is Social Darwinism.