This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Liberal or Conservative in WoW?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Anarchy is, at its very root, the philosophy that states that there is neither state nor society. No cultural norms. No rules, no regulations. Do what you want, when you want, to whoever you want to. That is anarchy.
I've never read anywhere ever that anarchy as a whole wants to dissolve society. Where are you getting this information from?
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I fall at the top right corner, favoring complete economic and personal freedom.
Anarchist?
No, Libertarian.
@ hyperspacerebel: I knew you were gonna put yourself in the upper-right corner. That political spectrum model was made by libertarians, after all (Totalitarian being the opposite of libertarian? Talk about bias).
What?
Are you denying that totalitarianism does not promote economic and personal freedom?
@Libertarian vs Anarchsim
Anarchism and Libertarianism overlap, but are not the same.
Anarchism = anti-state
Libertarianism = pro-freedom
Obviously those two
can
overlap, but not always. For instance social anarchism (or at least part of it) deny the existence of private property, which goes against the very heart of libertarianism.
So, just so we're clear...libertarianism is not aimed at the destruction of the state. Yes, it might very well be a means, but it is not the define principle of libertarianism.
Read what I quoted from HSR.
complete
economic and personal freedom.This can only be achieved in an anarchist system where there is no government or anything to interfere with one's freedom.
The role of the state in a libertarian society is to protect one's freedom. I believe the state is very necessary. Think of it like Blizzard keeping people from hacking your account. You can't exercise your freedom without it.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
OK. I hope you appreciate the fact that state has to take away lot's of personal freedom away to allow people to exercise their freedom.
No it wouldn't. The state takes nothing away. I said it quite clearly: the state protects rights, it doesn't take them away nor grant them.
Humans are too stupid, self-centered, weak and unable to make good and objective decisions on cases where their own benefit is involved in.
That's a self-defeating argument, unless you propose your "government" be controlled by apes or somethings.
I don't know what do you mean when you talk about complete personal and economical freedom, but in reality it wouldn't either:
a) work
b) differ much from some other system favoring less freedom
Do you know what personal freedom is?
Do you know what economic freedom is?
Do you know what freedom is?
You need to be more specific if you don't know what something means.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kibbles
The general population cannot make decisions for themselves while retaining the effectiveness of central government. If everyone wanted to make their own decisions, we would slowly start to sift out into our own niches with their own social restraints. Say, Florida would be a nudist camp, and California would be for beachy people and actors, and New England would be schooling. In Florida, it would be socially legal to go around nude and commit adultery. In California it would vary. In New England it would probably be much like the US is now, albeit a bit more conservative.
The problem with complete freedom is that a country can't function that way. Germany could come over with a small army and take over all of the SouthEast. And since we are in a different 'niche', we would say go f*** yourselves, Florida! This is why we became a country, not a group of clans who act similar within their clan but attack others.
Post by
Kibbles
and what about simple things like the government publishing your name in a phonebook or taking a census? That means that if there was a corrupt person in government, he could sell out the names and locations of everyone under 10 to some rapist. There are some things that are so rare that no one cares.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The general population cannot make decisions for themselves while retaining the effectiveness of central government.
Assumption with no basis.
If everyone wanted to make their own decisions, we would slowly start to sift out into our own niches with their own social restraints.
What's wrong with filling your own niche? Isn't that a perfectly natural thing to do?
Say, Florida would be a nudist camp, and California would be for beachy people and actors, and New England would be schooling. In Florida, it would be socially legal to go around nude and commit adultery. In California it would vary. In New England it would probably be much like the US is now, albeit a bit more conservative.
Actually everywhere would allow nudism, "adultery," etc. The government would have no jurisdiction in those areas regardless of your State.
The problem with complete freedom is that a country can't function that way.
Economic + Personal = complete?
Germany could come over with a small army and take over all of the SouthEast.
We're still 1 country, with 1 government.
And since we are in a different 'niche', we would say go f*** yourselves, Florida! This is why we became a country, not a group of clans who act similar within their clan but attack others.
Uh, what?
TL;DR - I think you need to learn about the issues being discussed.
Edit:
and what about simple things like the government publishing your name in a phonebook...
The government doesn't do that.
...taking a census?
The census in its current form is very intrusive and the government has no business shoving it in our face. The only thing the government needs to know as far as the census is concerned is whether you exist.
That means that if there was a corrupt person in government, he could sell out the names and locations of everyone under 10 to some rapist.
What does that have to do with anything?
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
For example the state says all people under 18 aren't allowed to drive. (for obvious reasons)
That's not the role of the State.
I said that people can't make objective decisions about things where their benefit is included. That is how corruption works.
For example, I honestly think inheritance shouldn't be passed for the sake of equality - even after my father passed away and I got lots of money. Of course all logic dictates that I should give this money away since I've done nothing for it. But do I really do that? No.
This is partially why people need rulers and politicians to think for them and to keep things together, and it works since they can make fairly unbiased and rational decisions. But have you ever wondered why politicians have so nice payments and vacations?
I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything, let alone the post you were replying to.
I don't know what do you think people are free to do and what not to do?
People are free to act in their own "bubble."
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
State's role is to protect people from themselves so yeah.
Not preemptively no.
You restrain the guy who hurts people while driving, not the teenager you assume will hurt someone.
I:"Humans are too stupid, self-centered, weak and unable to make good and objective decisions on cases where their own benefit is involved in."
You:"That's a self-defeating argument, unless you propose your "government" be controlled by apes or somethings."
You notified that if humans are unable to make good objective decisions on things where their own benefit is included - then no state can do that for them since the state consists humans.
Great you laid out the two previous posts. That doesn't make your latest post any more relevant.
People are free to act in their own "bubble." What determines if I have penetrated other persons "bubble"?
Um....your eyes?
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Or you want everybody to have a gun, indegrients to make a bomb or other dangerous stuff if they just want to?
Yes people have the right to carry guns.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to do. You're pretty much just asking my particulars when I already told you the general rule. You should be able to derive the particulars yourself.
Would it be okey for me to fire a worker who doesn't share the same religion/is an atheist then?
It's your company. You can hire or fire whomever you want.
Again, why do you even need to ask this?
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think that people would be more chained in your country than in old soviet russia.
Seriously...wtf?
We need to be pre-emptive so bubble's won't be penetrated. It wouldn't be a good idea to give a gun to mentally ill person since the change of him penetrating some bubble's is so high that it is "less bad"-choice to not give him/her a right for a gun.
No. Rights are more important than the possibility of rights. You don't take away someone's rights in order to maybe save someone else's.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.