 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Cyro
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
16
General / Re: Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:51:56 PM »As long as it's anarchism, I don't see why anyone has to worry about it.
If you ask them enough questions you find out that mutualists do want some kind of state to enforce their "commonly owned" land so definitely not anarchism.
Individualist anarchism is not the same as mutalism.
17
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 02:19:22 PM »You guys should look into Switzerland a little more before calling it socialist. Switzerland is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has the second free-est/most capitalist economy in the entire world after Hong Kong, and also has one of the lowest tax burdens in the world. The marijuana laws are among the least restrictive in the world - there are legal weed stores in most states. The gun laws are also amongst the least restrictive in the world. Switzerland also has one of, if not the most, de-centralized forms of government in the world. It is my understanding that many of the highways in the country are privately owned. I know that saying "the best kind of democracy" is kind of like saying "the best kind of cancer", but Switzerland has a pretty neat direct-democracy system where all you need to bring about a national vote is to get 50,000 people to sign your law proposal.
Yes, there is government funded health-care and welfare programs for poor people. But the country is far from socialist.
GAH. I was just advocating Switzerlands Socialist program, because, like you said, it's citizens are usually rated as the happiest against other countries,but you say that it's the most CAPITALIST? Are it's citizens taxed on a voluntary basis? I mean, they're socially free, but from what I've heard, very NOT free economically. But, their tax burden isn't too bad compared to what their getting, so overall, it's not a bad deal for them.
I'm just saying, they DO have restrictions on starting up a business at the spur of the moment that say Chinaman will not (I mean, as long as he's in China and not spitting on the sidewalk or smoking pot).
I think he means it has one of the least restrictive economies and social policies of it's citizens. It's socialism-lite in a sense, welfare statism done well, but socialist it is. Then again I'd label almost every government on the planet socialist, so I may be biased in this judgement.
18
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:56:35 AM »Unless... Communism is completely voluntary and socialism is strictly enforced by a government... that would make sense? Is that right?
Bingo. The entire idea of a commune is that people are there voluntarily, as they want that life for themselves.
19
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:51:36 AM »I accept that definition of communism, I just reject the idea that it could work on any but the most minute scale.
I respect your opinion, but if you ask most Swissmen/women, you'll find that they're one of the happiest peoples in the world, although HIGHLY communistic. Although this is my only basis, and it's hardly scientific, it's why I could support small scale, completely voluntary communism.
However, hulking government is NEVER a good thing. Heck... neither is a hulking corporation of a job... ringing up things on three computers at Sears SUCKS! I just mentioned that to my military member husband yesterday after one of the computers crashed and a customer had to wait 30 minutes to PAY for their purchase because the computer takes 15 minutes to start back up (seriously, no reason for THAT!)...
Anyways, after my rant to him, he said "Why do you not see why I want to get out of the military so badly?" and basically explained that it's a big hulking system that doesn't work well on a personal level like DECENT job would....
So yah... I wish you well Ziggy, but small groups governing a big group of people, even IF they promise to redistribute wealth never end well.
I hope you call back though! I really do enjoy your updates on at least ANY types of progress of Liberty (social OR economical) around the world
*sigh
No, Switzerland is not Communist, as Switzerland is a nation, not a commune. It's a socialist nation.
20
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 07:14:54 AM »So... I think in the long run, it's all about balance. But how can you force socialism/communism at the tip of a gun like that?
With communism, you literally can't force it at the point of a gun. It's often misrepresented, but communism cannot exist on a mass scale, that's what socialism's for. Just look at the derivatives of the words: Socialism - Society. Communism - Community. Whilst Socialism effects collectivism over a society, something requiring force to accomplish, Communism is just collectivist communalism. It's basically an act of political segregation, no worse than the FSP.
Oh, and Ziggy, yep, you're a liberal, good luck with that. Just don't except me to like any social changes you wish to enforce on me.
21
General / Re: Explain the Idea that Taxation=Slavery
« on: August 04, 2008, 06:16:51 PM »Cyro, while I understand your underlying logic, the idea of a functioning society
is often one of compromise, and services we enjoy would not be paid if taxes
did not exist.
I would like you to provide evidence that "compromise" has achieved anything. Revolutionary thinkers and idealists progress (or regress) society for better or worse, as far as I can tell. The philosphers of ancient Greece established the foundations of our current society by opposing the existing powers that be in intellectual advancement. Ghandi changed the worlds view of passive resistance and opposition to authority. Martin Luthor King redefined the modus operandi of society on the base of race.
None of these examples invoke the "virtues" of compromise.
Quote
Perhaps you would rather live without these services, or feel the services would
get handled by free thinkers living in a open egalitarian society of our choosing.
I would rather live in a world with freedom of choice. Do you still have a choice? Of course, but that choice is an act of rebellion, not of freedom.
Quote
Perhaps, hmmm... but honestly from what I know of human nature, many would
choose to be lazy, smoke pot, wander aimlessly, do what they want to do all the
time without being any more accountable than our current administration.
I think you have this backwards, a government can't develop anything, except new methods of destruction and regression. It's the state that is lazy and those who fall victem to it leach that apathy. You've taken these peoples lives from them, why should they attempt to better themselves and improve their lives then the state will hinder and rob and enslave them at every chance it gets?
Want to see progression, remove the status quo, break the need for a modus operandi and shift the paradigm. Give people their lives back.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, let a man learn to fish and he will have an armada of fishing boats within 4 years.
23
General / Re: Ian is this your new girlfriend?
« on: April 05, 2008, 07:53:47 AM »What are you guys talking about? She's a crazy bitch. I rode out the storm an waited for Ian to dump her goofy ass.
Want him for yourself, eh?
24
The Polling Pit / Re: What political philosphy is the worst?
« on: August 26, 2007, 09:45:47 AM »Transhumanism is a political philosophy?
Not really just an option for the primitivists.
That's not really a political philosophy either though...
I would consider bring about the end of civilization a political philosophy. It does what most of the others do in the long term faster.
Society =/= Government.
26
The Polling Pit / Re: HOLOCAUST
« on: May 19, 2007, 07:04:00 AM »
Technically the Nazi chancellor of Poland suggested and initiated the first death camps, the German Nazis had been running concentration camps already, but the Polish suggested death camps, after their occupation, obviously.
27
The Polling Pit / Re: Updating the BBS banenr
« on: April 10, 2007, 07:01:49 PM »
A challenger appears:
28
The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?
« on: January 14, 2007, 01:06:29 PM »
"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
~Ernest Hemingway
~Ernest Hemingway
29
The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?
« on: January 13, 2007, 02:25:57 PM »They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.
No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.
Okay, but the point remains that it was not necessary.
Wasn't it? Playing the 'what if' game gets tricky; it's hard to say what could have happened. Japan could simply have bought time with e peace talks and hit key strategic points whilst the US was unaware.
I suppose you could say the same thing about Iraq. We might as well nuke em and get it over with. While were at it we can nuke Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well. Hey, lets not forget about Iran, they might become a problem too. Oh, an South Korea, lets not let them off the hook. Where does it end?
What about the soldiers that gang raped that little girl? Is that okay with you? We are after all, in a war. Maybe if we rape enough of their children it would be as much of a deterrent as a nuke? Perhaps we should gather up all of the children we can find and flay them alive on national TV? Or we could pour honey over an open wound and let fire ants eat them alive.
Would that not be a deterrent?
Is there anything that you would not do to innocent civilians because your country was 'at war' with them?
When did I say I advocate this? I've not even voted on the poll because I think it's too restrictive.
All I'm saying is that not everything can be based off morality.
30
The Polling Pit / Re: Is war about morality?
« on: January 13, 2007, 02:05:20 PM »They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.
No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.
Okay, but the point remains that it was not necessary.
Wasn't it? Playing the 'what if' game gets tricky; it's hard to say what could have happened. Japan could simply have bought time with e peace talks and hit key strategic points whilst the US was unaware.