Originally posted by ilikecomicsYeah, 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.
From what i understand, fascism, communism, and syndicalism have more in common than they dont.I keep thinking about fully automated luxuary space gay communism.
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.
Originally posted by BrolyBlackhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/
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.
Re: Austrolibertarianism
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why is criticism levied toward the state immediately viewed as absurd?Why is the state seen as necessary and implicit aspect of human life?
Why do people see the monopolization of force or economic intervention as moral?
1. It isn't
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.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0Very good post 👆 have you ever seen the pictorial East zinnia company coffee table book. It is amazing. I miss coffee table books.
1. It isn't2. 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.
Originally posted by Blakemore
It was sarcasm XDI imagine if it was a thing it would be something along the lines of "kill all humans"
Originally posted by SurturDayum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_syndicalism
Originally posted by Blakemore
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.
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.
We're more similar than dissimilar.
Re: Re: Austrolibertarianism
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
1. It isn't2. 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.
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.
Originally posted by Blakemore
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.
Also i agree with you on everything except taxation.
If i rob an old lady then use that money to start an orphanage, is that moral? My answer is no, pro tax people may say yes.
It's the difference between consequentialism and deontology.
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?