What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Good call.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So my question is, if you could design your own political party, what sort of ideologies and policies would it represent?

It would basically be a libertarian party. Policies would be to decrese government spending and taxes.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix

Would it fall into a certain place on the political spectrum?

Not really. It would be socially and fiscally liberal though.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix

Should we do away with the political spectrum model altogether?

It doesn't make much sense. But is an easy way to talk about politics for people, especially in societies where there are only really two major parties.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix

Should we have more diverse parties like they do in Europe?

I think that if you choose to have a democracy then even if only 2 percent want something specific it should in some way be represented on a federal level.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps, but considering that the system seems largely based on completely voluntary donations and the effective use of money as a motivator those are fairly important questions.

indeed they are. I think this was made clearest when we were probed about education policy some dozen pages ago...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm capable of separating the person from the belief. I know that you and Bardock are intelligent, rational people but I also think that most of the premises you have for whichever of the myriad forms of anarchy you support are largely baseless and as such are silly and dumb.

well, I wont try to change your opinion...

to be clear though, the premises that lead to anarchistic ideology, at least in my case, are ones that are universally thought to be the foundation of America and enlightenment philosophy in general, although in my opinion carried out to their logical conclusion (I'm sure even against their creator's wishes).

My basic premise is that no man has the right to control the actions, involuntarily, of another man, unless of course in cases of self-defense and the like.

I think you mean, as you explain below, that the logic doesn't follow, or that it isn't practically possible. I think earlier you were even praising the premises, if a less extreme version.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do the same thing in the religion forum, just not with them.

blah, stupid internet ambiguities, do you mean a) you target people specifically, or b) get defensive on other people's behalf.

if a) weird, if b) indeed. It may be mutual and completely impersonal, but there are still humans on the other side of the internets.

not to be melodramatic, but there is the case of the woman who posed as a teenage boy on the internet and got a young girl to commit suicide. Obviously not related, just, the anonymity brings out the worst in people sometimes. Obviously I'm not saying I'm immune

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is a good place to start and certainly is not an anarchist concept that I had considered before. In fact it helps avoid many of the problems people in general have toward the notion of anarchy.

Aye, if history has said nothing, revolutions of the kind where entire governmental systems are overthrown rarely lead to a nation of freedom.

The American revolution might be unique in this regard, although there are many reasons why it is reasonable to believe it is not a comparable example to the French, Iranian, Cuban or Russian revolutions (and I'm terribly ignorant of South America, so the pro Chavez revolution may stand as another example. Chile supports my point iirc however).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My disagreement is not about whether humanity would survive a move into anarchy (organized or not) it is simply that people do not have the general mind set or ability to run a society without centralization. Miniarchist policies have some appeal but I don't have enough faith in people as a whole to say that they're going to get along or cooperate without far reaching organization.

I disagree

every day of my life I see people organizing themselves, and working together with each other without any need or thought of government. I will give you that keeping would be fascists at bay might be tough, especially if they are labor abusing militant (put in any extreme case descriptive word you can think of), but that people can't, day to day, live in peace with each other without the state? I can't accept that, and would appeal to the evidence of the entirety of society.

But, we have gone through this, you think petty crime would go up, I don't and also feel that a job at least as competent as the modern police force could be done through non-state initiatives.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't mean unwillingness to accept problems in general (though I do tend to suspect idealists of that), just that the problems people bring up are generally dismissed with canned nonsense that fails to really address the question.

see, from my point of view, the conversation has repeated itself from about page 2. I feel a lot of the "canned nonsense" came from questions/attacks that showed very limited comprehension of what Bardock and I were describing.

This probably is evidence more of our differences in political outlooks rather than anything else.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not, unfortunately many anarchist do hold that view and the reverse is just as bad. Unfortunately people on both sides do sometimes take the stance that the other side is not worthy of any regard,

totally, especially in issues of politics where any objective information is scant, people shouldn't be overly dismissive of anything. That is likely where I am becoming defensive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
much like one finds in the argument between evolution and creation.

touche

actually, I like what you did there

Originally posted by lord xyz
Going back to the discussion on political parties, like it was on the first page, and first page only.

YouTube video

Pretty awesome actually. I'd vote for them.

interesting video

I like a lot of what he has to say, but I don't think crime comes, in a large part, from a lack of police.

I live in a upper/upper middle class area of an industrial town in southern Ontario. Available in our region are maps of where crimes happen, which I'll check infrequently.

With the exception of kids drinking underage and drugs, crime is unheard of in my part of town, and likewise, there is almost no police coverage. Rarely do we see cruisers around here, and personally, I've always felt it ok to act with relative impunity in the area.

More police on the street may itself be a band-aid solution.

I'm on the horse...

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So often we get lumped into either being Liberal or Conservative and for our friends to the south it's Republican or Democrat. And when a person doesn't fit perfectly into one of those molds they get labeled "Moderate".

or "radical"

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So my question is, if you could design your own political party, what sort of ideologies and policies would it represent?

Well, I've already mentioned massive federalism, however, I would also advocate for intense technological and infrastructural investment

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Would it fall into a certain place on the political spectrum?

not likely, though it would borrow ideas that are successful for desired outcomes from any party without fear of "stealing" from another party.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Should we do away with the political spectrum model altogether?

Yes, I find it confines people to specific ideologies rather than encouraging them to think things through for themselves. It is very easy to say I am a X, so I believe Y about Z.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Should we have more diverse parties like they do in Europe?

I'll echo Bardock, though I guess I'll do it in favor of "big government" (ha). I have always thought a house of 100 people, each representing 1% of the national vote, should decide what happens in the nation.

To avoid the domination of this by centers of high population, the federalism I advocate would counterbalance this by removing from federal power the most salient choices in people's lives, and allowing them to be made at community levels.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Discuss...

don't buy a broken system

quadruple post, bitches

Originally posted by inimalist
well, I wont try to change your opinion...

to be clear though, the premises that lead to anarchistic ideology, at least in my case, are ones that are universally thought to be the foundation of America and enlightenment philosophy in general, although in my opinion carried out to their logical conclusion (I'm sure even against their creator's wishes).

My basic premise is that no man has the right to control the actions, involuntarily, of another man, unless of course in cases of self-defense and the like.

I think you mean, as you explain below, that the logic doesn't follow, or that it isn't practically possible. I think earlier you were even praising the premises, if a less extreme version.

Yes, the premises are a wonderful idea. I would argue that implementing them is fundamentally very different from having the idea. Something like the formal difference between validity and soundness.

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, stupid internet ambiguities, do you mean a) you target people specifically, or b) get defensive on other people's behalf.

if a) weird, if b) indeed. It may be mutual and completely impersonal, but there are still humans on the other side of the internets.

😂 B

Originally posted by inimalist
Aye, if history has said nothing, revolutions of the kind where entire governmental systems are overthrown rarely lead to a nation of freedom.

The American revolution might be unique in this regard, although there are many reasons why it is reasonable to believe it is not a comparable example to the French, Iranian, Cuban or Russian revolutions (and I'm terribly ignorant of South America, so the pro Chavez revolution may stand as another example. Chile supports my point iirc however).

America probably had the uncommon advantage of being largely independent before its revolution.

Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree

every day of my life I see people organizing themselves, and working together with each other without any need or thought of government. I will give you that keeping would be fascists at bay might be tough, especially if they are labor abusing militant (put in any extreme case descriptive word you can think of), but that people can't, day to day, live in peace with each other without the state? I can't accept that, and would appeal to the evidence of the entirety of society.

Difference of scale, IMO. Groups can and will work together independently on a small scale (up to say a large town). I don't think it would work with much larger groups because the needed amount of communication scales up more quickly than is possible.

Constructing a factory can be done somewhat spontaneously. Constructing a network of them requires long term thinking centralized organization to make sure that things are roughly where they need to be. Relying on individuals might get you the right buildings but it won't get them in the right place.

Government doesn't have to be "big" to be extensive. I realize factories are typically organized by private groups, it's just a metaphor.

Peace would also generally maintain itself within a small society. But without organization it is not easy to maintain peace between societies. Even just on the scale of cities you get rival territories developing.

Originally posted by inimalist
see, from my point of view, the conversation has repeated itself from about page 2. I feel a lot of the "canned nonsense" came from questions/attacks that showed very limited comprehension of what Bardock and I were describing.

This probably is evidence more of our differences in political outlooks rather than anything else.

Most likely.

Originally posted by inimalist
totally, especially in issues of politics where any objective information is scant, people shouldn't be overly dismissive of anything. That is likely where I am becoming defensive.

That's a reasonable outlook and understandable response.

Originally posted by inimalist
touche

actually, I like what you did there

😛

I dont know if has been mentioned but what is up with McCain's dentures popping out?...lol

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting video

I like a lot of what he has to say, but I don't think crime comes, in a large part, from a lack of police.

I live in a upper/upper middle class area of an industrial town in southern Ontario. Available in our region are maps of where crimes happen, which I'll check infrequently.

With the exception of kids drinking underage and drugs, crime is unheard of in my part of town, and likewise, there is almost no police coverage. Rarely do we see cruisers around here, and personally, I've always felt it ok to act with relative impunity in the area.

More police on the street may itself be a band-aid solution.

I also believe the reason there's no police in your area is because there's no need for police there.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I also believe the reason there's no police in your area is because there's no need for police there.

That's pretty faulty logic unless you know myriad details about the area he lives in.

I'd go for a very libertarian kind of government, though I'd probably still agree to a government based police/fire force. The principal of anarchy is a very attractive one, it's just a system that I can't see working, at least not entirely.

"We should have the freedom to do whatever we want, but if I do something you don't like, you have the freedom to kill me." -George Carlin (not verbatim)

I think we should have a political system that is not controlled by people who have heavy interest in the oil industry or any connection to a large enterprise that will make political decisions that only benefit they're interests . I think politicians should not be allowed to use religious views to support their campaigns. I would like to see more incentives being pushed at exploring and creating better public transportation systems and alternative fuel sources to ultimately abolish our need for oil.

I'd like universal health care, and damn it, I think there should be sections in movie theaters where you could bring your dog.

Originally posted by Robtard
"We should have the freedom to do whatever we want, but if I do something you don't like, you have the freedom to kill me." -George Carlin (not verbatim)

Your rights end where mine begin?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The theory is, people won't commit crimes when there are police around.

yes, but there is no such thing as 100% police coverage, and a lot of crime that feeds violence (like drugs) are almost unenforceable in a system with any sense of civil liberties.

I can't help but thinking that (and maybe this is a more north america thing, but London has rising youth violence) in lots of cases the police are seen as corrupt and, like with the formation of LA gangs, people need to protect themselves from them. A lot of the reason why cops don't patrol some areas is personal danger.

if the more root causes of crime were addressed, increased police presence might not be necessary

lol, I'm not arguing against the video, just saying that additional cops, with no policy on poverty, urban infrastructure etc, is a band-aid solution in itself.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I also believe the reason there's no police in your area is because there's no need for police there.

exactly my point

therefore, the presence of police is not necessarily the best way to lower crime rates

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but there is no such thing as 100% police coverage, and a lot of crime that feeds violence (like drugs) are almost unenforceable in a system with any sense of civil liberties.

I can't help but thinking that (and maybe this is a more north america thing, but London has rising youth violence) in lots of cases the police are seen as corrupt and, like with the formation of LA gangs, people need to protect themselves from them. A lot of the reason why cops don't patrol some areas is personal danger.

if the more root causes of crime were addressed, increased police presence might not be necessary

lol, I'm not arguing against the video, just saying that additional cops, with no policy on poverty, urban infrastructure etc, is a band-aid solution in itself.

exactly my point

therefore, the presence of police is not necessarily the best way to lower crime rates

As for the second point, what do you suggest to cut crime?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, I think he said that the solution isn't to fine people with knives, it's to assure people they don't need knives.

But then only criminals will be sure they need knives.

Originally posted by lord xyz
As for the second point, what do you suggest to cut crime?

Well, I'm not inimalist, but I came from a fairly wealthy area where we had just about zero crime and like ten cops (who bought a hummer and posted a guard in the highschool). One of the most effective ways to cut back on crime is to remove some of the reasons people have for committing it, ensure people have basic necessities, narrow the gap between rich and poor, and (yeah, yeah) end things like the War on Drugs that make basically innocent people into criminals. The more those can be cut back the fewer criminals you have and most of the ones you do will mostly be inarguably criminals.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, I think he said that the solution isn't to fine people with knives, it's to assure people they don't need knives.

I don't necessarily know the UK situation too well, but if the reason people are carrying knives is criminal (ie, they need a knife to attack someone, or rob someone, or protect their stash), and not simply for self defense (which is the impression I got), the only way to eliminate those knives is to eliminate the criminal enterprise.

For something like drugs, the only state that I know of that has ever been able to eliminate the enterprise of marijuana is the Taliban in Afghanistan, who would boil the users in water. It is for this reason that some criminal enterprise, like the drug trade, is going to be almost impossible to enforce while necessitating violence from those in the business (you can't sue someone who rips you off).

Originally posted by lord xyz
As for the second point, what do you suggest to cut crime?

The most salient one is the war on drugs. Outside of that, I really can't speak to the UK. The idea would be to find the specific root causes for the knife crime, not just attack the knife crime itself.

If its just too many youth with nothing to do, open a rec center. If it is minority problems, maybe some sort of public awareness/cultural pride thing. Encouraging local community leaders to be role models for kids is big, but I'm way more versed with US/Canada inner city/native reserve issues.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't necessarily know the UK situation too well, but if the reason people are carrying knives is criminal (ie, they need a knife to attack someone, or rob someone, or protect their stash), and not simply for self defense (which is the impression I got), the only way to eliminate those knives is to eliminate the criminal enterprise.

For something like drugs, the only state that I know of that has ever been able to eliminate the enterprise of marijuana is the Taliban in Afghanistan, who would boil the users in water. It is for this reason that some criminal enterprise, like the drug trade, is going to be almost impossible to enforce while necessitating violence from those in the business (you can't sue someone who rips you off).

The most salient one is the war on drugs. Outside of that, I really can't speak to the UK. The idea would be to find the specific root causes for the knife crime, not just attack the knife crime itself.

If its just too many youth with nothing to do, open a rec center. If it is minority problems, maybe some sort of public awareness/cultural pride thing. Encouraging local community leaders to be role models for kids is big, but I'm way more versed with US/Canada inner city/native reserve issues.

They do go for the root, I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm sure that's the policy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No. The knives are for protection, of course, but why get a knife for protection when there's police already protecting you?

They do go for the root, I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm sure that's the policy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have constant and instant police protection?

I do. Is that like, not common or something?