Yeah, I never liked radicalism. That's why I tend towards the centre with a favourable preference towards social liberties. It looks like I'm somewhere along the libertarian, technocratic, georgism, nordic model area of the spectrum.
Technology, good. Looking after the environment, good. Not infringing others who don't hurt others, good. Free market, good. Taxes, mostly bad, but necessary. Tax those who abuse their power when it comes to harming others. Tax should be a fine in that if someone is a dick they should get taxed more.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon
Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
It’s disgusting you think that. In fact you think anyone that doesn’t agree with you is far right. Really a awful way to live bro. You should really work on yourself.
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
2. Because "the state" is the only thing keeping most people law abiding. See Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Liberia etc to see what happens when a state fails.
3. Because without economic intervention to some degree you end up with the East India Company, United Fruit Company, DuPont, Monsanto and how many other corporations doing whatever they want without consequence.
__________________ Sweating on the streets of Woking
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Just finished a book by albert jay nock. He identified as a georgist, which is pretty much constitutionalism, without all the merchant tampering, with a single flat tax or something like that.
1.) in my experience it is. Im not talking about criticism levied at a particular individual, party, or group. Im talking about Criticizing the entire state apparatus.
2.) this same line of reasoning was used to prop up the church before the creation of the state.
It's pretty much like saying "those people are dogs and need a ready hand with a strong switch. "
I dont believe that.
3.) you listed companies with incestuous relationships with the state.
A company, without state interference, cant just go around and do anything it wants. It has to provide customers with value otherwise the customers dont pay and the company fails. However companies assisted by bail outs, protectionism, sanctions on other countries with a similar product, destroying goods to create false scarcity etc. Can do whatever they want because they're longevity isnt based on providing value.
If a company does something for the cheapest, safest, most efficient way then i see no reason it shouldnt be a monopoly.
I think the political compass is really confusing to people because it's a graph. I always tell people you can simplify it by taking the two lines and making them one.
The statist/ararchism line, from my eye, is the same measurement as the left to right axis measuring economic intervention by the state.
How can a man be free if the state tells him how to spend his dollar?