Jump to content

  

45 users have voted

  1. 1. ideology



Recommended Posts

 

 

It means people don't have private property.

from what i heard that if you didn't pay your taxes you'd be put into prison until all debts are paid 

 

 

 

what if I refuse to work?

people don't really like the idea of paying taxes for someone who can supports themselves but refuses, I mean at look at immigrants when they get council housing, people will bound to get annoyed and get "pissy" at that group due to people not supporting themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites


Register now to remove this ad.
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This forum has a few anarcho-capitalists and objectivists, so I think I'll leave my post and get out before they start showing up. My patience when dealing with these people is very limited. I picked

Nazism is socialism. They were called National Socialists. I find that people who are ignorant like to call themselves socialists. It's very trendy for young, dumb people to say that they "care" about

Is there supposed to be a point? Ok, so some people make more than others. What's your point? The world isn't perfect? Is that your point? I run into this problem all the time. People don't really mak

from what i heard that if you didn't pay your taxes you'd be put into prison until all debts are paid 

And is that moral? No. I'm not anti government. But anything the government does must be limited to its small role. The US constitution is unique in that it prescribes a limited government. The unlimited power to tax is a dangerous thing for a government to have.

 

 

 

people don't really like the idea of paying taxes for someone who can supports themselves but refuses, I mean at look at immigrants when they get council housing, people will bound to get annoyed and get "pissy" at that group due to people not supporting themselves

 

Again, the solution is freedom. I have the freedom to support them or not, as I choose. But when they are "entitled" to those things by the government, that is immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the solution is freedom

that freedom will always be interrupted by the more stronger government armies the only way to solve this problem of the government would be either anarchism or minarchism

 

 

 

that moral? No.

in my opinion, yes, because it is certainly better than tossing them out into the cold to die

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nations like Russia, China, North Korea, the bastions of freedom? So you're saying that, as you got older, you believed more and more that people should be less free, and controlled more by the government? I'm not sure what you're saying, so I don't want to put words in your mouth. The point is, socialism = control by government. I've heard many people from former soviet countries, and NOT ONE of them has ever said it was good under communism. Have you ever heard of anyone trying to sneak INTO a communist country?

 

Communism means a few people at the top control everything. It is the exact opposite of freedom. Communism is packaged and sold to uneducated young people in colleges as some utopian idea that everyone will get along and be happy under some all powerful State. Philosophically, communism and socialism necessarily lead to the idea that people are expendable and the collective is all important. The sacrifice of one for the good of all.

 

Consider this question: Is it moral to kill one person to cure all disease, even if that person doesn't want to be killed? From a freedom perspective, the answer is an obvious no. From an illogical, ignorant, communist perspective, the answer would be yes.

 

If you can justify stealing a loaf of bread from someone, then you can justify stealing two. You can always take away more freedoms, and control people more and more under the justification of "the greater good."

 

Your first paragraph brings up some valid questions about the role of government.  The other paragraphs are increasingly nonsensical questions about imaginary problems.  So I'll respond to the relevant concerns you raised in the first paragraph.

 

First, I never said that Russia, China or the DPRK are bastions of freedom.  Nobody in their right mind would make that claim.  Your approach seems to focus on which format provides the most freedoms.  I'm all for that...within reason.  Those 3 nations clearly leave much to be desired.  As an alternative reference point, consider Singapore: its comparatively high employment rates, low crime rates and overall cleanliness are rather impressive to see (or research).  Granted, this is only possible through their rather aggressive policies regarding vandalism, panhandling, etc.  In essence, they've traded personal freedoms (like chewing gum in public) in favor of a communal benefit (like not having gum stuck to every surface of their subway cars).

 

It might seem competent or knowledgeable to insist on "solutions" when discussing these issues, but anybody who has studied the issues involved knows that there is no silver bullet that will emerge on some forum dedicated to candy-colored cartoon horses (or any other internet forum).  Brow-beating participants is not a good way to encourage discourse on the matter, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

in my opinion, yes, because it is certainly better than tossing them out into the cold to die

This line of reasoning is flawed. By that logic, there is no end to government power. Rather than steal your money, it would be more efficient to make these people live with you. After all, you are so rich that you can waste your time on a computer talking about little ponies. The moral thing would be for the government to force you to work to take care of the poor. What if we all refused to work? Would the government have the moral authority to force us to work at gun point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

you are so rich that you can waste your time on a computer talking about little ponies

 

I can afford this PC because

 

1. I live in the first world and possibly always will do

2. I live with a family that has wealth

3. the fact is this is a CAPITALIST country I live in and my family doesn't have the same belief as me means they would be willing to buy things that I wish for that are a reasonable price (plus I only get £30 a month to spend and a lot of things i have to save for)

4. I am in fact spoilt (but not as spoilt as some others)

 

 

 

This line of reasoning is flawed. By that logic, there is no end to government power.

you're not the only one that has flawed logic as I keep referring to you said that every quid that is given is taken from another person, but you only seemed to imply this on communism

 

 

 

What if we all refused to work?
 

that is a silly thing to say, there will always be people who work, more so than those who don't.

that's like me saying that the video game crash happened because one game was bad (I say this is a somewhat decent example)

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a silly thing to say, there will always be people who work, more so than those who don't.

No, it illustrates a point. Where does the government get the moral authority to steal something that I earned? If 90% of the people work, then it's easy to justify a small tax to pay for the other 10%. But what if only 80% of the people work? Or 50%? Or only 10% of people work? At what point does it become moral to steal?

 

If you get £30 and I take 10 cents (or whatever your equivalent to cent is), that's no big deal to you. What if I say I'm taking it to help the poor kids who don't have a computer to watch MLP. What if I take £1? 2? 10? When does it become wrong? What if instead of me stealing it, I form a group, we call ourselves a government, make official looking badges, and call it a tax. Is it wrong then?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is the true way of nature, the law of nature defined it in the amendments of the universe.

Karl Marx and Lenin tried to change and alter the law of nature but John Locke asked very great question:

" Who should have the ultimate power?"

If you take a look in history, all kings and emperors failed to hold the ultimate power in which coming with their downfalls.

Democracy is yet the most stable form of government as well as helping maintain the ultimate power but when talking about the universe, God is the one who always has that power!

Capitalism is the essential tool to keep the world in balance as well as dividing and earning the power. Karl Marx failed to see the one of the most important rule of the universe. "YOU CAN'T BREAK THE RULE!"

Communism is shattered in Russia as well as all Eastern Europe because it broke the essential core of the rule of the universe so if you trying to against my idea. 

 

So ask yourself! What activity you are using which symbolize the listed ideology?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what killed Russia and basically ended the Cold War? Communism. Everyone was being paid the same no matter how hard they worked, and the end product is they were bankrupting themselves to build instruments of war to show up the United States. With little incentive for people to work harder (i.e. they didn't get paid more for working harder), innovation largely stagnated, and production suffered.

 

Contrast that to the United States, which landed on the Moon (Russia had technical difficulties which allowed us to get there first), made HUGE advances in medicine, as well as advances in things that hippies like (I live in an area heavily saturated with hippies, who are mostly commies also, so that's my exposure to communists) like renewable energy, "green" energy, and gas-efficient lower polluting cars. 

 

And that's beside the fact that freedom trumps slavery any day. Go watch some documentaries on the difference between East and West Berlin during the Cold war. Citizens of the Communist-controlled GDR were shot while trying to escape from East to West. Why? Because if the Commies let people come and go as they please, there wouldn't have been many people left in East Germany after a year.

 

Read Plato's Utopia. In it he says in pretty plain language (for a Greek) that either a communist nation rules with an iron fist, or it exists by only having perfect people in it. I haven't seen any perfect people around, have you? And power corrupts. Don't ever forget that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well based on one quiz involving political ideologies and then searching Google to confirm it seems I am most an even mix of a Libertarian and a Conservative

This confirms my agreement of being Libertarian: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian

Interestingly when searching for Conservatism I found that there was on branch called :”Libertarian Conservatism” which would likely be what I am based on the quiz. Digging deeper I find there being what is called Christian Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism

 

… sighs. It seems clear I do not see the world politically, as while I do agree with much of the above I would not describe it as shown. I think I may just keep away from politics...

------------------------

 

On the ideologies listed though I'm not sure what I would be, checking them on Wikiapedia doesn't help me.

 

Honestly, if such was possible, I would prefer a world where people work together for the benefit of all with not great differences that lead to extremely rich and extremely poor.. yet at the same time I believe that if people what to live comfortable lives they need to work hard to do so and not depend on the government and others if possible. I believe people should work towards independence yet not be afraid to ask for help when they need to. We are in this together and we should not work against each other. Do not look each other by class, race, religion but as brothers and sisters... we should see each other as family. We need to be allowed the chance to create our own lives and even jobs, have such actually be productive... yet also allowed employment with larger companies. Work is messed up in America though...

 

Yet I also believe strong in structure and law, that which is harmful towards others should be discouraged such as murder, rape, abuse, violence, theft, destruction of property (examples) yet also looked at through severity. The first four should have harsher punishment while the others less so. If feasible those involved should also get help, as their can be physiological and mental issues playing a part in their behavior.

 

We should have the freedom to live our lives as long as the do not get in the way of the freedoms of others... admittingly these are complicated issues and considerations. I will not say I know all the answers nor that I can even begin to cover all these issues, I am too private individual to try and I do not feel comfortable with deciding anything for more people then myself.

Edited by EquestrianScholar
  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

from what i heard that if you didn't pay your taxes you'd be put into prison until all debts are paid 

 

Not in the United States. Imprisonment for debt is against Federal Law, although apparently there are a few states that do it anyway (one of the few instances where I think Federal Law should supersede State law). The Supreme Court ruled that making someone stay in prison because they're too poor to pay a fine is an infringement of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_399)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)
No, it illustrates a point

no, it does not, the difference between the government and the people is that the government have weapons

are you saying that the smartest idea is to go with knifes and pieces of pipe and go against hundreds of soldiers with rifles?

that's is the most stupidest idea that anyone could come up with, risk not seeing your family for the rest of your life just because you don't agree with the government?

 

 

 

that freedom trumps

want to know what?

freedom does not exist, america was built on slavery and racism, do you think those people had a choice in the matter? 

Edited by jorji
Link to post
Share on other sites

want to know what?

freedom does not exist, america was built on slavery and racism, do you think those people had a choice in the matter? 

 

Freedom does indeed exist. But it's something you have to fight for; if you stop believing that freedom exists, than it truly ceases. And no, the United States was not built on slavery (and racism isn't the same thing at all). The Southern States had an addiction to slavery (I call this addiction laziness), and built their entire culture on it. But there were more people living in the Northern States who didn't do slavery than in the Southern States. And the original wording of the Constitution made slavery illegal, but some of the founding fathers changed it because they wanted the southern states to ratify it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it does not, the difference between the government and the people is that the government have weapons

are you saying that the smartest idea is to go with knifes and pieces of pipe and go against hundreds of soldiers with rifles?

that's is the most stupidest idea that anyone could come up with, risk not seeing your family for the rest of your life just because you don't agree with the government?

 

 

want to know what?

freedom does not exist, america was built on slavery and racism, do you think those people had a choice in the matter? 

Not in my country. I have 20 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. Free people are armed. Slaves are not. Maybe you have to work with knifes, but I have my guns.

 

Oh, here we go. I was waiting for it. The last bastion of the ignorant: The Race Card. "America was built on slavery and racism." Well, I guess I don't have a come back for that. You win. Slavery existed 150 years ago and that means anything good America ever did doesn't count. And every American is wrong about everything because America was the only country in the history of the world to ever have slaves. Slavery existed in the past, so therefore we can have communism and new slavery today.

 

And of course the people who starved under communism totally had a choice in their lives. Why do I even try?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Freedom does indeed exist
the wars made by the government and not the people totally shows freedom.

 

 

Slavery existed 150 years ago and that means anything good America ever did doesn't count. And every American is wrong about everything because America was the only country in the history of the world to ever have slaves

I didn't say that, stop miss quoting me, I said that america was built around slavery

 

 

And of course the people who starved under communism totally had a choice in their lives. Why do I even try?

again LEADERS not the actual ideology

Link to post
Share on other sites

the wars made by the government and not the people totally shows freedom.

I assume this is sarcasm. In what way? The United States doesn't fight wars to enslave people, it fights them to free people. Other countries have started wars of conquest, but with the exception of the Mexican War, we're free from that blemish.

 

I pity you, if you truly feel that freedom doesn't exist. Freedom is the basis of human life, and without it life is meaningless. 

Edited by websterhamster
  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert with by any means, but I'd have to say some form of capitalism with some laws in place to keep the people that get big from using that power to abuse others. That's ultimately the problem in the US, it's far to easy to abuse the legal system when it comes to such matters. It seems like when talking rights, bigger companies are given leanings in their favor instead of treating the law in an unbiased way.  

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I didn't say that, stop miss quoting me, I said that america was built around slavery

Ok, again, what is your point? This is a tactic used by people who don't have a real argument. Cite something bad, then step away from it and don't defend or dismiss it. Then let the other side waste time by addressing it. Ok, so slavery existed in the past. So what? It doesn't exist now.

 

 

 

again LEADERS not the actual ideology

So the only problem with communism is people. Eliminate human nature, and there's no problem. So you're saying all we need is perfectly honest people who will never become corrupt, and will always have the best interests of others in mind. Simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I find the fact that Nazism is even listed to be baffling as who would touch that ideology by voting for it.

 

Anyone who voted for Nazism will find a whole lot of people attacking them.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

 

 

if you truly feel that freedom doesn't exist

it doesn't exist under current circumstances (freedom would exist if people like actors didn't get shorter prison sentences) anyway, aren't you's dictating what I believe?

I mean if I have freedom of choice than I can be a commie can I not?

 

and can we finally just end this stupid argument?

I mean seriously, I'm not even the one who started the argument, someone said I was a slave to my own belief so I responded, why would I choose that belief without Freedom!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

and can we finally just end this stupid argument? I mean seriously, I'm not even the one who started the argument, someone said I was a slave to my own belief so I responded, why would I choose that belief without Freedom!?

You are free to stop anytime. No one is making you continue. 

 

Regarding your comment on my statement... I am not "dictating what you believe", I am simply voicing my observations. I observe that you seem to have a very narrow definition of freedom. Just because someone gets a shorter prison sentence because they're an actor (could you cite a reference to an instance of this happening in the US, please?) doesn't mean that my freedom is infringed. However when the government starts telling me what kind of lifestyle I may live or tells me what guns I may or may not own, then my freedom is infringed.

 

So far, while I've seen the government trying to infringe on my freedom, I haven't seen them take it all away. As Mace Windu pointed out, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." This isn't a Boolean, you can be free without having 100% freedom; that's called Anarchy. It's impossible for me to have 100% freedom without someone else having less. If I have the freedom to beat you senseless, than you don't have the freedom to not be beat senseless. Mindoraan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)
could you cite a reference to an instance of this happening in the US, please?

 

 

-Charlie Sheen took drugs and battered his wife and barley served a day in prison

-drake (i think) battered Rianna and didn't serve a day

both of these examples I say break the freedom and rights of others 

 

 

 

fact that Nazism is even listed to be baffling

i saw a Nazi on the website i go on who always says that the holocaust (which calls it the holohoax)

and another on a remix of a song

Edited by jorji
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a simple Wikipedia search (not the most reliable of sources, I know) and came up with the fact that Charlie Sheen (never heard of him before now) served 30 days in a drug rehab center (basically prison, because he couldn't leave), and 30 days of probation, on top of 36 days of anger management.

 

However, although that still seems a little light for the offense he committed, you still haven't shown proof that he was given said sentence because he's an actor.

 

Your other example doesn't come up with anything on the Internet...

 

Like I said, evidence. You're making a claim that our court systems are corrupt. Others have made similar claims about other kinds of corruption in the Justice system, but they've been able to back up their claims with proof. This is not something to take lightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

you still haven't shown proof that he was given said sentence because he's an actor

it still seems a bit to coincidental don't you think?

if I did the same I would be locked up for years for doing that

 

 

 

Your other example doesn't come up with anything on the Internet..
looked it up a bit more, it was actually Chris brown, but apparently he's still in court since 2009 
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Charlie Sheen took drugs and battered his wife and barley served a day in prison -drake (i think) battered Rianna and didn't serve a day both of these examples I say break the freedom and rights of others 
 

 

I have an honest question... what does that have to do with capitalism being bad? The court system has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. The exact same thing could happen in a communist country.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...