Ideaologies



  • I would say anarchist, or something along these lines.



  • Anarchy could only work in a world of infinite space, and nearly unlimited economic opportunity. Basic,crude human urges and desires might make biological sense further back in our species history (lust, ambition and greed,) but in a situation with any observable population density such base urges must be moderated, that’s where laws come in. The higher population density the greater the need for laws and regulations. Anarchy today would turn into total chaos and insecurity. Not everyone is going to behave because there will always be greedy, lustful, jealous, unruly people. When we were disperse, small bands of hunter gatherers such people were in less contact with other people, likely only in contact with blood relations within their tribe or band. So on a small scale, it could totally work, on a large scale? Nope. Also we would be living primitive lives, how much advancement can we get done with a group of 20 or so people? Laws and regulations are the only way to rule a large scale society, and a large scale society is the only effective society.

    /idiotic post



  • @Huggles:

    Anarchy could only work in a world of infinite space, and nearly unlimited economic opportunity. Basic,crude human urges and desires might make biological sense further back in our species history (lust, ambition and greed,) but in a situation with any observable population density such base urges must be moderated, that’s where laws come in. The higher population density the greater the need for laws and regulations. Anarchy today would turn into total chaos and insecurity. Not everyone is going to behave because there will always be greedy, lustful, jealous, unruly people. When we were disperse, small bands of hunter gatherers such people were in less contact with other people, likely only in contact with blood relations within their tribe or band. So on a small scale, it could totally work, on a large scale? Nope. Also we would be living primitive lives, how much advancement can we get done with a group of 20 or so people? Laws and regulations are the only way to rule a large scale society, and a large scale society is the only effective society.

    /idiotic post

    But dude… Anarchism is not the lack of laws, modern anarchism comes from the proletarian theory and is mostly about abolishing the class divided society and so, abolish work exploitation and shit like that. Have you EVER read anything from the proletarian theory?
    Do you know what it means?



  • @Vanguard:

    But dude… Anarchism is not the lack of laws, modern anarchism comes from the proletarian theory and is mostly about abolishing the class divided society and so, abolish work exploitation and shit like that. Have you EVER read anything from the proletarian theory?
    Do you know what it means?

    Ummmmmm you don’t know what anarchism means. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchism



  • @Huggles:

    Ummmmmm you don’t know what anarchism means. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchism

    Thats your sorce?

    Shit man… Dictionary… lol…

    Wanna understand what is anarchism? Guy Debord, Errico Malatesta, Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Piotr Kropotkin. Guy Debord is the best to get the idea. I mean, is a complex theory that has changed a lot during modern history.



  • @Vanguard:

    Thats your sorce?

    Shit man… Dictionary… lol…

    Wanna understand what is anarchism? Guy Debord, Errico Malatesta, Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Piotr Kropotkin. Guy Debord is the best to get the idea. I mean, is a complex theory that has changed a lot during modern history.

    Ik man, these dictionaries. It’s like, the only function they serve is to give definitions over what a particular concept is. Some of the guys you listed here are marxist socialists, not very good examples of anarchism……

    All of that complexity means absolutely nothing if it can’t function more effectively than Capitalism. You can’t limit the growth of private Industries, you should only limit how they achieve their goals so that they ultimately benefit the society rather than enslaving it.



  • @Huggles:

    Ik man, these dictionaries. It’s like, the only function they serve is to give definitions over what a particular concept is. Some of the guys you listed here are marxist socialists, not very good examples of anarchism……

    Lol, who in that list is marxist socialist? Really, I wanna know.

    Dictionaries are very userfull, but this is a complex subject and you are being really, REALLY reductionist.



  • Off Topic is the new debate club. Why did it have to get so serious?

    #Huggles4President2014.



  • @Vanguard:

    Lol, who in that list is marxist socialist? Really, I wanna know.

    Dictionaries are very userfull, but this is a complex subject and you are being really, REALLY reductionist.

    Do you even know what reductionism means? Because it seems like a plus to me.



  • ITT Huggles acts friendly in op to bait you into saying your ideology then he makes fun of you



  • @Karasu:

    ITT Huggles acts friendly in op to bait you into saying your ideology then he makes fun of you

    Liessssss

    /-10 for liessss/



  • @Huggles:

    Do you even know what reductionism means? Because it seems like a plus to me.

    What? I think I do, but english is not my first language so I might have used the wrong word, now Idk.

    Who from those names are marxist SOCIALISTS? Answer this, because I really think you’re talking big over a subject you do not understand (proletarian theory).



  • @Vanguard:

    What? I think I do, but english is not my first language so I might have used the wrong word, now Idk.

    Who from those names are marxist SOCIALISTS? Answer this, because I really think you’re talking big over a subject you do not understand (proletarian theory).

    Well there are most certainly some socialistic beliefs tied in with all of that, maybe not enough to label him as a socialist in paticular but guy debord was apart of certain organizations that can raise an eyebrow. Also, the proletarian theory is just wrong entirely and here’s why. Value is not objectively determined, and value is not zero-sum. Both of which he argues to be the case relentlessly. He believes that somehow the more a worker makes, the less he is getting because business owners must pay laborers less than their labor. Which is false, because in turn one can argue that this is simply not the case at all. Marx makes the straw man, that somehow markets values are fixed, and cannot change. Price is always determined based off of supply and demand, therefore one cannot argue direct exploitation is there, if the product value isn’t actually determined by the labor put into it.

    Resolution to your inexperience and lack of economical illiteracy: Drop unrealistic view points and become a progressive if you hate exploitation.



  • slavery failed, monarchism failed, feudalism failed, capitalism is what 250-300 years old?, it will fail…too bad we won’t be able to see how capitalism will sustain a population of 10,15,20 billions. Capitalists have the governments, they create their own rules, they control the state…so much power yet they can barely sustain 3rd world countries, unless they impose fascism and fund these ‘‘left-center’’ liberal parties to sabotage and murder revolutionaries. That’s how the world works outside the 1st world, Imperialism expanding their rule through fascism, they loot and leave the country in ruins.

    Fascism is when one greedy individual controls? that’s they teach in Princeton university?..Why fool their own lackeys when they could easily impose even more nationalism?

    Stop being an idiot and take your politics to this section before they ban you. They know you’re provoking



  • @ashvins:

    slavery failed, monarchism failed, feudalism failed, capitalism is what 250-300 years old?, it will fail…too bad we won’t be able to see how capitalism will sustain a population of 10,15,20 billions. Capitalists have the governments, they create their own rules, they control the state…so much power yet they can barely sustain 3rd world countries, unless they impose fascism and fund these ‘‘left-center’’ liberal parties to sabotage and murder revolutionaries. That’s how the world works outside the 1st world, Imperialism expanding their rule through fascism, they loot and leave the country in ruins.

    Fascism is when one greedy individual controls? that’s they teach in Princeton university?..Why fool their own lackeys when they could easily impose even more nationalism?

    Stop being an idiot and take your politics to this section before they ban you. They know you’re provoking

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Extreme nationalism that is directly imposed by dictators you mean.

    No country in the world directly applies imperialism anymore you fool, that’s unprofitable and inhumane. We send troops to protect our supply and insure balance in the global economy. When a new regime rises and threatens interests oversees for the 1st world, there is no other option. However, toppling regimes is also expensive so we need to acquire new ways to prevent such intrusions on trade.

    The premise your basing your argument on has no merit. Our GDP is steadily increasing significantly every day, and our supply vastly out numbers the demand. Greed is a wonderful thing in small doses as it creates competition which in turn results in unforeseen technological innovation. (the market America leads the world in, and has led in since wwII) Sure, if the population of the US were to grow 40 billion overnight, there might be a problem, but overpopulation population is never drastically occurring within such a short time frame. Unless a new system comes about that can meet demand as effectively as this, it will never happen. Sure we will go through various forms of capitalism, but the basic idea of private ownership of capital will never fade.

    I think America encourages revolts in third world countries more than it mutes them…

    If something isn’t working, the markets will clearly show it and the Government will switch incentives to allocate resources more efficiently.

    I also have no idea where this ridiculous belief that somehow nationalistic pride in your country is wrong in any extent. The very culture I uphold, the very principles upon which this Country were founded. All of which I take pride in, there are many disgusting things in our history as is the same with every country in the world. You take from the past all the positive things that can about, and you replicate those core scenarios that led to such drastic innovation. To go against such an idea is to be incompetent and unjustified.

    It’s also hilarious when the same people that argue against military intervention, are against isolationism. You cannot have free trade without military intervention.

    I laugh when these arguments are made, because everyone seems to believe this world is black and white, in the sense that there is always a righteous side. There is no good or evil, only markets that perpetuate basic transactions between several entities that fuel the economic pump of the world, and those entities that partake in the transactions. Stop bringing your unaided emotion you obtained from a video into the real world.



  • @Huggles:

    accept capitalism as the prime and only system, or fail like Karl Marx.

    Accept a system based on exploitation and personal profiting? yea, no.

    It doesn’t matter how many regulations you have, the wealth gap will keep increasing, there will always be monopolies, etc

    Why don’t your capitalist masters regulate the banks and markets before they crash again?, why don’t the capitalists regulate the wealth gap?...such regulation, giving trillions of dollars to the banks, Keynes at full practice…financial aid to monopolies!. It’s funny how Keynesians come out of nowhere just to clean up the mess capitalism leaves behind.

    Well…at the end of the day Keynes wouldn’t work without imperialism.

    Millitary expansion and exploitation = salvation of capitalism.

    Keynes = band aid fix



  • Just stopping for tea at camp 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ



  • @ashvins:

    Accept a system based on exploitation and personal profiting? yea, no.

    It doesn’t matter how many regulations you have, the wealth gap will keep increasing, there will always be monopolies, etc

    Why don’t your capitalist masters regulate the banks and markets before they crash again?, why don’t the capitalists regulate the wealth gap?...such regulation, giving trillions of dollars to the banks, Keynes at full practice…financial aid to monopolies!. It’s funny how Keynesians come out of nowhere just to clean up the mess capitalism leaves behind.

    Well…at the end of the day Keynes wouldn’t work without imperialism.

    Millitary expansion and exploitation = salvation of capitalism.

    Keynes = band aid fix

    Any system that uses free trade will result in military intervention. Isolationism is the only way to fend off being involved in foreign affairs, however this limits the strength if the economies, as interdependent countries ultimately benefit US interests.

    There is a law against corporate monopolies lmao…… Anti Sherman Trust act, and if you’re going to use the excuse of lobbying, think again. Lobbying is every corporations right, simply due to the fact that every Governmental law has an empact on the economy. Abortion, murder, theft you name it. Corporations are directly affected by it, therefore they have a rright to voice their opinions. Corporate interests, public interest, and military interests all coincide to form a mixed economy.

    We have regulated banks before, and will most likely do so once again. Banks are core industries that are absolutely neccessary for the economy, it was deregulation of the private sector that ultimately resulted in the recession, keynes doesn’t advocate deregulation at all. Everything you said has been addressed multiple times, by multiple economists and in practice has been proven false. We haven’t used Keynes in a while, blaming the current economic issue on Keynes is just plain silly.

    Income inequality isn’t a problem to a certain extent, only progressive taxes and closed loopholes can balance out income inequality. (Which Keynes advocates) tea partiest interests have held our growth back, but we will soon resume control. Keynes is actually meant for long term growth, tax cuts and isolationism just limit growth entirely.

    Interdependence is the reason why America is the most prominent country in the world, and will in all likelihood continue to be.

    There is no “exploitation” please read my post on the other page.



  • don’t encourage him



  • @ashvins:

    It doesn’t matter how many regulations you have, the wealth gap will keep increasing, there will always be monopolies, etc

    Let it be known, we shouldn’t have any police officers because people are going to try to murder anyway, duh. We shouldn’t try to fix the exploits in chivalry because people are going to exploit anyway, duh. Name one existing monopoly to this day. One.


Log in to reply