Why are almost all political parties hypocritical in this ?
Why do people war back and forth over who is right? And why do we want to force someone into something they want no part of? Why instead of voting a capitalist , socialist, or any ist you can think of that takes away other peoples right so you can feel like you got your "agenda" done, instead let other people do what they want and suffer any consequences of it, and you do what you want. If the bugger tries to mess with your property, let him have it. Otherwise, leave them alone! It just seems like people grab for power. At the end of the day, how does that help the average joe? How does going to war with someone you never even met helping you prosper? How is caring what someone does in their bedroom helping you become anymore moral? How is forcing someone to pay for someone else's medical, loss (in the case of a business), or food going to ever get people to show empathy for those who really need it? I guess my question is, why can people leave other peoples business alone??? Why do we need to control other people through politics and other hierarchy? If people put as much effort into running their own lives as they did other peoples, we would have a better society.
Here is one example why this simplistic notion can never work:
http://www.alternet.org/news/148407/ayn ... age=entire
What I am saying is why not just leave people to their own business? If someone wants to smoke pot, leave them alone. If someone wants to practice some weird religion so be it. I guess I am not arguing so much for libertarianism in as much panarchism. Why do people keep wasting there time bashing this side or that side and just decide to believe what they believe and that is it. It seems like whether it is social conservatives or war hawks on the right or nanny state people on the left (or any one in between) seems to want to control each other. Why can't people on the right allow gays to live in whatever relationships they want and liberals live up to their name and allow the church to decide for itself if it wants to allow it? All I am saying is if you want social democracy or whatever, why do you need everyone in on it? Why not allow other people to practice what they want? I guess the question is why do we continue to force people to do what we want? Why not let everyone do what they want? Eliminate a governance monopoly, eliminate borders, and allow for voluntary cooperation. Why do we need to defeat other peoples ideas? Why not allow communist to practice communism, same for fascist, anarchist, capitalist, and any other ist. Why does governance have to be a zero sum game where one person wins and everyone else looses? Why can't everyone win?
http://www.alternet.org/news/148407/ayn ... age=entire
"Limited government only sounds good as an abstraction, but the principles of the free market won’t get you too far when your house is on fire."
Lol. Just lol. If you're going to cite an event as an argument against the "free market", you might want to make sure the perpetrator was private enterprise and not an agent of the state, in this case the local fire department.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Everyone "cant win" for an obvious reason.
Society can only be one way at a time.
A country cant be monarchist, democratic, totalitarian, non totalitarian,nazi, anarchist, libertarian, and theocratic, secular, capitalist, communist, all at once.
So you have to choose one thing, and discard the others.
So I dont see what you're complaining about.
Society can only be one way at a time.
A country cant be monarchist, democratic, totalitarian, non totalitarian,nazi, anarchist, libertarian, and theocratic, secular, capitalist, communist, all at once.
So you have to choose one thing, and discard the others.
So I dont see what you're complaining about.
This. You can't have a society where one group of people refuses to accept private property (eg: everything is publicly owned), another accepts only the concept of personal property (eg: people only can own small things like books, cars, and furniture--the rest is publicly owned), and yet another believes that private property is a fundamental human right (eg: one should be able to own whatever they like and can afford to buy, including land, infrastructure, buildings, machines, animals, commodities, electronic representations of commodities, etc.--public property is does not exist or exists only minimally).
I guess my point is that why not make government more akin to mutual aid than one monopoly fits all. Thr reason why all these isms don't work is because when you force everyone to do something, you are likely to have someone who lack motivation to make that system work. So why not let people contribute to what they have motivation to do, we as a world would be more happy , productive, and efficient. Why don't we question the status qou? Why not create a new tommorow?
Nobody is apolitical. Politics is the fabric of all of the power structures around us. What you are doing is calling for an end to certain kinds of discourse. What could be more political than that?
Your libertarianism pretends to be "common sense" that we all share, but it isn't. Your unquestioned notion of "property" is an ideological fiction.
This isn't remotely apolitical. You are proposing libertarian-esque concepts. Communism can not function if there is private property, so essentially what you are proposing is libertarianism rather than allowing everyone to pursue their own ideological agenda.
So you want to illiminate politics, and replace it with politics.
Create "a new tomorrow" by doing exactly what?
Can you do us a favor, and actually say something that actually makes sense as a statement?
_____
Your proposal to eliminate borders is the only thing youve said that is a specific proposal that makes any sense as a statement.
Assuming you mean international boundries: there are only two ways that could be done. One is to eliminate all governments. The other is to have the entire world have one World government.
So which thing are you proposing?
The last time fire services were private, in Rome, they showed up and negotiated a price as the house burned. But the example clearly illustrates that even a slight movement in that direction is absurd and can't work in the real world. There are no closer examples in modern times because nobody would be stupid enough to privatize and deregulate fire services.