Where do you stand politically

[ralis]

He didn't say 'disconnected'.

 

I understand the difference in word usage and well understand the context in which sovereign is used. Your correction is not welcome!

[joeblast]

LOL not welcome...cmon karl, cant you see this is a designated safe space here! 

[Brian]

LOL not welcome...cmon karl, cant you see this is a designated safe space here!

I carry polka dot ribbons in my coat pocket for just such occasions.

[Brian]

Nobody. If I put you in a cage then I say you are free, does it make you free ?

 

When I was born I was totally dependant on my direct environment (mainly family) with no means to act, I was never less free than when I was born. All was up to develop.

 

Do you have kids ? Did you try to let them alone in the forest ?

Who put you in a cage??? Perhaps a better question is who taught you to believe you are in a cage?

[Karl]

Prove self contained?

You just did that for yourself.

[CloudHands]

what a rhetoric...

 

I have been confronting my ideas with right wing people (from time to time) for one year or more trying to understand how these people think these ideas. I don't know maybe something was missing in my reflexion or maybe they were smarter or more intelligent that I am. To some extent I understand it and I agree, but avoiding tyranny and guaranteeing individual liberty is not the privilege of capitalism. In a certain manner it's even the opposite with that idea of laissez faire, if you let a bully do... you'll have... yes ! an infernal circle. 

... I started to explain my view further but that is an absolute loss of time since I learnt that we all start sovereign, there is obviously no more no need to balance anything, that so much weight off.

Thank you very much indeed!, I love it  

Edited October 3, 2016 by CloudHands

[Karl]

LOL not welcome...cmon karl, cant you see this is a designated safe space here! 

ive micro aggressed against him......sinner.....sinner :-)

[Karl]

what a rhetoric...

 

I have been confronting my ideas with right wing people (from time to time) for one year or more trying to understand how these people think these ideas. I don't know maybe something was missing in my reflexion or maybe they were smarter or more intelligent that I am. To some extent I understand it and I agree, but avoiding tyranny and guaranteeing individual liberty is not the privilege of capitalism. In a certain manner it's even the opposite with that idea of laissez faire, if you let a bully do... you'll have... yes ! an infernal circle. 

... I started to explain my view further but that is an absolute loss of time since I learnt that we all start sovereign, there is obviously no more no need to balance anything, that so much weight off.

Thank you very much indeed!, I love it  

At least you are trying to understand which is a definite step forward. However, please understand that I'm not a right winger, nor a libertarian, Neo-con, Neo-liberal or any of that. I'm purely objectivist.

 

Capitalism is the trading principle. It isn't a policy, or a theory, it's what we do if given the freedom to do it. That doesn't exclude laws against bad actors. So, avoiding tyranny is something deeper, it requires philosophical change and the ending of moral cowardice. Good people, are so because the moral good is the best individual choice for those who pursue happiness.

 

What is there to balance ?

[CloudHands]

Everyone is born sovereign... What a great invention ! I should have thought about it way before what a dummy

[Karl]

Everyone is born sovereign... What a great invention ! I should have thought about it way before what a dummy

It isn't an invention.

[joeblast]

Its not a matter of having thought the idea, its a matter of going back in history and seeing how that idea was perverted into the top down authoritarian state we have today that only recognizes its own sovereignty and that of no other (well except isreal and any other nation willing to be bankster-bitch...but even at that, the peoples are not respected)

 

read wayne barbuto's "its not the law".....fantastic read...

Edited October 3, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

(of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference.

"a sovereign, democratic republic"

synonyms: independent, self-governing, autonomous, self-determining, self-legislating; More

non-aligned, free

"the Allies turned the western part of Germany into a sovereign state"

 

 

The definition here applies to a nation, but what applies to nations applies to progressively smaller nations and the smallest unit is a man. Able to act independently, which does not necessarily mean to survive independently.

[dust]

I do have to agree that, though this test is less simplistic and silly than most I've seen/done, it covers one of the most complex and broad topics that it is possible to make such a test for, so it still fails to adequately encapsulate the nature of the whole thing.

 

Just having Left---Right + Authoritarian---Libertarian is far too simple. There are at least 3 layers...they could be demonstrated in a 3D model, but not 2D 'compass' graph like the one on the test. And left-right is certainly not descriptive enough; to some it conjures politics, to some economics, to some other things. These things all need to be separated.

 

There are:

 

 

Economics:

 

Free market----Controlled market

 

 

Governance / Political process:

 

Democratic----Undemocratic    (e.g. voting vs. dictator)

 

Liberal----Authoritarian     (i.e. let people do what they will vs. the government [be it democratically elected or not] forces people to do things)

 

Nationalist----Globalist

 

 

Society:

 

Equality----Inequality   (i.e. sex, colour, religion, etc)

 

etc

 

 

In theory, a society could be any combination of these (and more), though obviously some fit together better than others.

 

capitalist and undemocratic and authoritarian with basic social sex/ethnic equality (China) (though no true freedom of religion)

capitalist and undemocratic and authoritarian with basic ethnic/gender/religion inequality (Saudi)

communist and undemocratic and authoritarian with basic sex equality (China 40 years ago)

capitalist and democratic and liberal with basic social equality (in theory: UK, USA, etc)

capitalist and democratic and authoritarian with general inequality (Russia..?)

communist and democratic and liberal?

etc

 

Nazi Germany was a communist economy, essentially democratically elected government turned dictatorship, with fundamental social inequality -- doesn't seem like this should be possible (communism + fundamental inequality arising from democracy), but there we are.

 

I suppose I stand behind a capitalist, democratic, liberal, equal society in which the government does nonetheless take some measures to ensure that business is kept in check. Or anarchy. As has been said, a test like this can't account for anarchy because it doesn't fall within the framework -- the whole point is that the framework of government and politics is unnecessary. A free market, but 'no government' means no concept of democratic/undemocratic or liberal/authoritarian.

Edited October 3, 2016 by dustybeijing

[joeblast]

the test was very careful not to finger banks as a source of problems, that's its biggest red flag right there

 

"with the flick of a pen..."

[mindtooloud]

If earth is politics, then i stand on mars