:( , I prefer communism!(click to show/hide)
KAPIKULUISM.
Working communism would be utopia 8-) too bad it doesn't work :rolleyes:
U crazy commi scum
Nothing wrong with having it privatized. Why should someone who sits at home and collect food stamps and other shit take part of what others have invested smart in and what not to get as much money as they currently have.
''Hurr durr you got lots of money, share man! SHAREEEE IT'S COMMUNISM NOOOW BOYSS!''
Everyone for himself/herself mentality exists for a good reason.
You dont understand, you have made the rules impossible, there is nothing possible to write positive about something so short term, blinding, and inherirantly flawed as capitalism.
BTW: Im not a leftist, Im a realist, but you have not had an education, nor have you developed independant thought, and for this, I pity you
Liberal people love their different kinds of versions of ''leftist''.
And of course you would say that because you support ''WHAT's mine is yours and what's yours is mine'' bs mentality.
No chance for someone with ambitions to gain some capital and spend your money wisely to increase and increase your wealth? No, it's gotta be fair for EVERYONE.
IF you fall down while being chased by a giant boulder coming after you, you expect everyone else running for their life to stay and pick you up?
That's just a load of crap. And realist? What? You basically want to prevent people from living lavish just because unlike others they played their cards well and made the right decisions with their money.
we have an overflow of racists, leftists, atheists, satanists and did i i mention leftists (?) living happily together.
Which would you class me as derpenger?
Errrrr........ehmm....KKK member?
You're talking about me being ignorant? And yet you're an anarchist. You believe in a society without a government. You honestly believe ''moral laws'' would keep the population calm and that they would actually behave rationally and think as well?
And you call yourself a ''realist''. You honestly believe in an anarchist society? And you don't think that without a government violence will escalate and gangs will eventually be in charge of your country?
You're the one thinking like a lunatic and have no understanding of the world and how it would act if there's no regulation at all. You're just a joke when it comes to your political views/beliefs.
Juvenile beliefs is what it is.
No kafein. Western capitalism only works as long as their is a 3rd world to produce all the consumer goods that are lowering in price. Once they have attained a level of wealth that they no longer feel the need to work for pennies a day, they must then find someone ELSE worse off to produce for them. This cannot be sustained. Only a 2 systems are sustainable: a socialist form, or an anarchistic one.
Im SO tired of reading ppl write about "Socialist state". By its very nature, you cannot have a socialist state. Socialism has NEVER been tested, all attemps to create a single state that is socialist are doomed to failure by a misunderstanding of the very basic element of socialism: EVERYONE has equal wealth BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE EQUALLY productive, there is no space for lazyness, a FUNDAMENTAL part of socialism is that EVERYONE means EVERYONE, not just the people of one state. Of course a single communist state surrounded by countries run by greed will be corrupt, noone can resist the temptation to screw the socialist machine over for personal gain, if they can use that gain in a neighboring country to live a life of indolence. For ANY test of the socialist ideal, it would require THE PLANET to become socialist, and reward for industry. Being industrious in ANY production is valuable. Consuming for the sake of expending is ridiculously unsustainable.
Here is an example of capitalism: In the '70s a washing machine was invented that was durable and well balanced enough that if would not feasibly break without misuse. Frigidaire bought the copyright and fucking buried it. Enough said.
EVERYONE has equal wealth BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE EQUALLY productive
I am a socially conservative
I despise the party-system, and would prefer a system where people aren't installed by political parties...Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) is what you want.
Is there a name for such a political view? (Besides Utopism, of course.)
Interesting views at some people, I must say. Especially the anarchy thing, how would that work?
Anway, to my point.
I never liked the whole left to right bullcrap, especially that now in my country one political party holds more than 75% of the Parliament, therefore they are unstoppable and can vote-in anything they want, more and more taxes on the people, making new laws that make their regime stronger while the people get screwed.
Democracy my arse.
I despise the party-system, and would prefer a system where people aren't installed by political parties, but because of their performance and reliability, you know, as independent people.
People who are actually useful for something. So they are serving the interests of the country, and not their political party while ruining the country.
Is there a name for such a political view? (Besides Utopism, of course.)
What does that mean ? Every sperm is sacred ?
No, however I am against abortion as I consider it murder.
Then I suppose you never masturbate except in sperm banks ? Losing sperm is murder too.
I thing there are several problem with democracies we know, but the one Christo mentions is interesting. At it's core, that is a corruption problem.
Then I suppose you never masturbate except in sperm banks ? Losing sperm is murder too.
(click to show/hide)
Hurp, leftist? I have always considered myself more towards right-wing :/
I am GandhiAre you me? :O (I'm not as left as Gandhi but as much libertarian I suppose...)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I am hot!
:3
(the second test is politicaltest.net, I consider it better because it doesn't mix some categories like, say, religious beliefs and authoritarianism)
by the way, would it be here a good place to state that I am an atheist?
Here's mine:(click to show/hide)
Interesting.
why so little on anthropocentric?
You god damn hippie!
Btw arathian I can't criticize your opinions but I can criticize their coherence :P And the test seems to agree, if that means anything.
Gonna do that test later...
I believe that every nation on Earth should be a federation with direct democracy in the states and semi-representative democracy on national level and the states should have A LOT of power. I believe in a completely free market, no exceptions. There should be no regulations but rigorous fullfillment of contracts. Taxation should be kept at the bare minimum although it is a necessesary evil
I am a libertarian, I believe in political non-intervention almost always, I believe in a non-intrusive state religion for moral guidance for the idiots that can't figure by themselves why they shouldn't sleep with 100 people a day, I believe monarchy is a good thing both for the tourism profits and the fact that it can serve as a symbol of national unity. I believe that every nation on Earth should be a federation with direct democracy in the states and semi-representative democracy on national level and the states should have A LOT of power. I believe in a completely free market, no exceptions. There should be no regulations but rigorous fullfillment of contracts. Taxation should be kept at the bare minimum although it is a necessesary evil.
'Under conditions of perfect liberty markets will lead to perfect equality'
- Adam Smith in 'Wealth of Nations'
I have bolded the important premise modern 'capitalists' and 'libertarians' seem to omit. 'Perfect liberty' is likely as much a feverdream as Marx and Engell's egalitarianism.
'Under conditions of perfect liberty markets will lead to perfect equality'
- Adam Smith in 'Wealth of Nations'
I have bolded the important premise modern 'capitalists' and 'libertarians' seem to omit. 'Perfect liberty' is likely as much a feverdream as Marx and Engell's egalitarianism.
I don't think the state should have anything to do with culture or religion. Even in civilized countries (church/state separation) there's still often a funding of religious/assimilitated activities which I consider borderline acceptable. Just like funding culture -> what's the point ? Let people donate what they want, that would be more just (no such thing as a culture authority can exist) and work just as good if not better.Agreed. I never said the church should receive funding. I simply said it should be the moral guide of a nation. If you will, the official "here's what you gotta do if you don't want to be a dick - idiot edition " guide provided by the state.
I think the concept of nation has done enough damage to be definetly rejected, but I understand this view is not shared outside of Europe for historical reasons. That's also why I believe in a centralised world government (which is probably going to happen anyway in the future), because more centralisation increases effectiveness, decreases corruption and and decreases the overall weight of the bureaucracy.
Yet even if this quote was somehow proved true (which it can't be considering how vague it is), it would be irrelevant as an anti-market argument. The choice is not about equality, it's about what works and what doesn't. Equality is good but is secondary if it means starving equally fast.
Agreed, thus it is fortunate that the only current economic system that doesn't let its people starve is capitalism :wink:Plenty of non-capitalistic economic systems throughout history have kept people fed. There's also plenty of capitalistic countries today that have millions of people starving every single day.
Plenty of non-capitalistic economic systems throughout history have kept people fed. There's also plenty of capitalistic countries today that have millions of people starving every single day.
This is just a note, not an ideological perspective :wink:
Source:http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm(click to show/hide)
Agreed. I never said the church should receive funding. I simply said it should be the moral guide of a nation. If you will, the official "here's what you gotta do if you don't want to be a dick - idiot edition " guide provided by the state.
How on earth does centralization and an EXTREMELY bloated bureucracy lead to more efficiency and less corruption? Since the begining of time, empirical evidence shows the exact opposite happens.
I won't discuss whether the concept of nation is a valid one as this is not politics but philosophy (but to note: I believe the nation to be the most important structure of society except for family)
Plenty of non-capitalistic economic systems throughout history have kept people fed. There's also plenty of capitalistic countries today that have millions of people starving every single day.
This is just a note, not an ideological perspective :wink:
Btw berenger how do you managed to get a forum title ? Constant trolling ?
Lol i never troll noob. I'm a gentleman. And that's that.
It's so bad it does actually work like that and I already have a title. I'm trolling you so hard right now.
Membergroup != title. Back with the peasants!
Some questions are so badly written I ended up not responding. Others are really open for interpretation. What does "I agree in part" to a "blahblahblah must never blahblahblah" sentence mean ?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhopFYj_BXQ)
Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy) is what you want.