Just Curious. What Are You?

@djjd62,

Does that imply that u prefer NO politicians ?

This will likely attract some sneers, but so what. I am a believer in arnarcho-syndicalism. In an increasingly industrialized world, labor becomes wage-slavery, and governments are instituted to protect the privileges of a favored minority. I diverge from anarcho-syndicalism only in that i do favor cooperative economic systems, but only insofar as they are worker cooperatives. The Mondragon Corporation would be a good example of how i think anarcho-syndicalism should work.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I was happy to get the "no party affiliation" designation on my voter reg card. I've voted for the person for most of my voting life. I am loathe to put myself in the pocket of any political party. I've sat out twice, voted for a Dem on the big ticket, a few Repubs.

I hate abortion - think it's killing a person - and I'm not afraid to say it - though it almost always evokes a nutty rabid feeding frenzy every time. I just happen to think someone who'd rather kill their child would make a horrid parent to it - and the child is likely better served to die quickly than live in their circumstance.

Equal rights are a big deal to me. I'm considered socially liberal.

I hate unions as they are now....not as they were then. They're bleeding our country of needed jobs, IMO. I was actually forced to join the union in CA, money was taken from my check without my permission, and I believe the teacher's union in particular has harmed education profoundly.

I am pro-defense, pro-gun, pro-personal responsibility (but this doesn't equate to pulling the rug from under people who need help).

I'm getting greener.

There's not a word for what I am politically (grin) though I know plenty here would love to try some out. Wink

I'm beginning to hate the oligarchy that has crept into our government, and I'm ready to get out in the streets in protest.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Holy ****, I dont think 1 person even answered you. What a bunch of assholes.
my (conservative "side") is that I truely believe in gun rights.
my (liberal "side") for example, is that although I don't condone abortions, & wouldn't want my girl to ever have one, I still feel that women should have the right to choose wheather or not an abortion is what they want.
There, 1 example of each.
In a Nutshell, "Conservatives" tend to be more controlling, judgemental, tax hating, and religious. While "Liberals" are more open minded, oppose any union of church and state, are open to more taxes, and tend not to judge, say... gays or other races.
theres an ACTUAL answer to your ACTUAL question, hope it helped

2 Replies

@Marc Cobain,

Quote:

Holy ****, I dont think 1 person even answered you. What a bunch of assholes.

So obedient. Probably made Eagle Scout by age 16. Cheers!

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

No one is "just curious." One has a reason, and "curiosity" is just a euphemism for that real reason, in my opinion. I'm curious about many things; however, the advice from the sergeant that gave us new recruits a five minute speech, before getting us fed and bedded down, upon arriving at 2 a.m., included the good advice of M.Y.O.B., as the way to get through the next four years.

I, respectfully, take a different vu.
Contributions to these discussions r all voluntary; nothing is extorted.
Its ez to ignore a question or to refuse to answer it.

David

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

What am I? Annoyed is my first reaction.

Boiling down the views of members to two categories is simplistic. . . .

The Contemplative Sentry
By W. S. Gilbert

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any,
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

When in that house M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too.
They're got to leave that brain outside.
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of statesmen, all in close proximity.
A-thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let's rejoice with loud Fal lal
That Nature wisely does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

1 Reply

I consider myself a zen socialist because I believe that the health of the collective is more important that the state of any of the individuals, and I believe that any individual who is unwilling to try to help the collective should be dumped (no work, no eat).

Some hot button issues:

believe that assets belong to the collective always, are only on loan to individuals, thus the collective can redistribute wealth at will

Against death penalty

pro abortion

Believe that guns should be strictly regulated, but this is changing as over time I become convinced that abusive government is a bigger problem then gun violence.

pro privacy, to include from the state

Believe that all speech should be legal

Believe in lots of sex, what ever sex two or more people want to do, and the government almost never should get a say

believe that only actions should be criminal, and running your mouth is not an action

am against gay marriage

generally believe that big government should be avoided

Believe that regulated markets generally work best, but sometimes regulated monopolies are the way to go, and sometimes free markets are.

-----------------------------------------

I tend to piss off conservatives and liberals pretty equally, though on A2K it is mostly the liberals because there are more of them and because I tend to be confrontational. If this were a conservative site things would be switched. I am left of center, and of any group libertarians tend to agree with me most, but they sure dont want to stand with a guy who claims that all wealth belongs to the collective.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I consider myself a zen socialist because I believe that the health of the collective is more important
that the state of any of the individuals, and I believe that any individual who is unwilling to try to help
the collective should be dumped (no work, no eat).

I believe that each member
of the collective shud be EXTREMELY anti-collectivist
and that each citizen shud be alert for any opportunity to exploit the collective to the maximum
and hide the evidence from the tax collector.

David

0 Replies

Hasn't the US system recently been declared an oligarchy?

From the outside looking in, from a foreign policy perspective, it makes very little difference to the rest of the globe, as to which of the two major parties gets the nod from the oligarchy. The war machine moves on, regardless.

I will note that this push for globalism (TPP) actually comes from some of the more insular and private individuals on the planet. The term itself is rather misleading. Kind of has an air of collectivism about it, when the opposite is the case. Akin to the Citizens United ruling.

When you consider the reality of a fiat economy where the Federal Reserve is buying their own Treasury bonds, while donating a monthly 85 billion to prop up Wall street, to give the appearance of a healthy stock exchange, I'd say that whatever you think of yourself personally, makes rather little difference to the big picture.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Hasn't the US system recently been declared an oligarchy?

By WHOM ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

By WHOM ??

Common people with more than five working brain cells, among others. Wealth is so obviously distributed unfairly in the USA that this description used frequently.

2 Replies

@Trollpatrol,

Trollpatrol wrote:

Quote:
By WHOM ??

Common people with more than five working brain cells, among others. Wealth is so obviously distributed unfairly in the USA that this description used frequently.

Well put, TP.

Although I think we ought be less worried about whether the US has become an oligarchy or a plutocracy...than in the question: If capitalism cannot come up with a more equitable distribution of national wealth...shouldn't we be trying something else?

Maybe can make one of the other systems work...and escape from even the hint or suggestion of oligarchy.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

i'm simply explaining what politicians are, in my opinion

as for what i am, i'm a human being

most of the time

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Did your explanation indicate
that u prefer to have NO politicians ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
What am I? Annoyed is my first reaction.

Boiling down the views of members to two categories is simplistic. . . .
The Contemplative Sentry
By W. S. Gilbert

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any,
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

When in that house M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too.
They're got to leave that brain outside.
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of statesmen, all in close proximity.
A-thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let's rejoice with loud Fal lal
That Nature wisely does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

That was written when the Liberal and Conservative parties were the two parties that ran government, notably before the Labour Party had much in the way of representation. Now the Liberals are the third party and they are in coalition with the Conservatives. There's plenty of MPs sitting on the opposition benches who are neither Liberal nor Conservative.

1 Reply

Anarcho-pessimist.

0 Replies

@Trollpatrol,

Trollpatrol wrote:

Quote:
By WHOM ??

Common people with more than five working brain cells, among others.

According to THAT definition, everything has been "declared"
to be anything and everything, including ALL POSSIBLE CONTRADICTIONS;
thus your question carries very little meaning (closely approaching none).

David

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Although I think we ought be less worried about whether the US has become an oligarchy or a plutocracy...than in the question: If capitalism cannot come up with a more equitable distribution of national wealth...shouldn't we be trying something else

We could try authoritarian socialism, That produced a more statistically flat distribution of wealth 1n both the former Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe as well as in Cuba. Unfortunately for those involved that distribution yielded a much lower economic standard of living for almost everyone, and a near total loss of individual freedom for all - not to mention governments well accustomed to the extermination of their political opponents.

There are some interim variants including the equally authoritarian pseudo populist government in Venezuela. It has shown a truly remarkable ability to snatch growing poverty, economic dysfunction and hyperinflation from the jaws of huge sources of potential national wealth and prosperity ... all in the name of the people and a "Bolivarian revolution", ... whatever that means..

I believe the essential problem with redistribution schemes such as those implied here is just who does the redistributing, and how do you limit his power and control. A near equally important issue is how to you sustain economic incentives and productivity under such a system. The track record so far for such systems isn't very promising.

Freedom and free economic activity have produced by far the best economic results around the world for a very long time. The track record for authoritarian systems empowered to pick political & economical winners and losers isn't very good, and they usually degenerate into tyrannies focused only on the maintenance of their power.

1 Reply

Capitalism is simply feudalism with the hereditary aristocratic caste replaced by a merchant class, often hereditary, seconded by their financier cronies, and supported and protected by lick-spittle political lackeys. The command economies of the putative socialist states of the eastern bloc were little different, and the hereditary aristocratic caste was replaced by the commissariat/apparatchik class. In either system, labor were the serfs of the new systems. It is pathetically absurd to suggest that capitalism entails either individual freedom or a "free market."

It is very easy to appear wise if one paints everything either black or white.

1 Reply

Just Curious. What Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know