Political philosophies that don't fit in today's pre-baked boxes...

[Budoka]

What do you mean, "if the government controls wealth"? Nobody is setting that as a prerequisite except for you. As for businesses buying politicians, that's a collusion between public and private entities, and therefore VERY illegal in any proper libertarian structure. Regarding your so-called pragmatism, I think you might want to watch this:

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

By the way, I'm afraid I'm going to keep replying to you here, because I have zero interest in hiding the rebuttals I give to your rhetoric from the scrutiny of other users.

[Kontra Kommando]

Budoka said:

@KontraKommando: Indeed. I, for one, favor nation-states, all the while being well-aware that those aren't objectively more efficient on an economic level.

The left-right (x-axis) determines economics/distribution of resources

The the top-bottom (y-axis) like the one found on politicalcompass.org determines social policy/order.

Perhaps there should be a third (z-axis) that measures an individuals political compass in regards to the role of nation-states vs globalism. This will literally make for a more 3-D measurement of political philosphy

EDIT:

Perhaps something like this:

[Budoka]

Nice work you just did here. The test I alluded to earlier uses pretty much this exact framework, but it doesn't provide an ideological synthesis, merely a comparison with what the various parties at play advocate.

Even then, this format has limits to. For example, regarding the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis, we could be talking about lifestyle issues (on which I am extremely permissive), or about security/crime issues (on which I am most definitely not).

Actually, the French test conflates security issues with cultural identity matters instead, which kinda says something about modern French politics.

[sudo459]

Budoka said:

What do you mean, "if the government controls wealth"? Nobody is setting that as a prerequisite except for you. As for businesses buying politicians, that's a collusion between public and private entities, and therefore VERY illegal in any proper libertarian structure. Regarding your so-called pragmatism, I think you might want to watch this:

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

By the way, I'm afraid I'm going to keep replying to you here, because I have zero interest in hiding the rebuttals I give to your rhetoric from the scrutiny of other users.

Hmm, what I really meant is that I don't care about the conversation, but if you wanted to continue, pm is what I wanted. Implying that I want to hide anything is petty. I'll check the video out soon, when I'm able. Can you give me a tl;dr?
OK, I watched the video. I'm sorry I chimed in but we are done. I'm not going to be told what I believe, to have implied that I don't use principles in my thinking is low. I'm getting a strong sense that you feel like you know how I think. I use the label pragmatist not because I work on a case by case basis, but more that I don't like having to adhere to specific ideologies. The free market isn't a cure all. Neither is socialism.

[TheEndOfUs]

[Spectre01]

I'm voting Trump 2016.

[insanoflex312]

Wealth:property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value

Why does money have value? Because the government taxes it. Every government taxes its economy. Wealth is always what the government taxes. Therefore, every economy is regulated in some form or another by a government.

As for buying politicians being illegal in a "proper" libertarianism, whatever that entails, a truly free market would not restrict what is and isn't an commodity, would it? A truly free market wouldn't regulate what a person can do with their wealth, would it? Guess your particular form of libertarian Utopia is not a truly free market, is it?

[VGamingJunkie]

Even a free market needs restrictions, specifically the Constitution. You shouldn't be able to violate someone else's rights.

[PureSlime]

rileymartin said:

I'm voting Trump 2016.

Taking a dump 2016

TheEndOfUs said:

(a video of Varg Vikernes)

Yikes.

I'm actually kinda surprised that we've had a few folks here in this thread actively embracing neo-Nazi ideals. Really messed up, tbh.

[Budoka]

sudo459 said:

The free market isn't a cure all. Neither is socialism.

No one here disputes that, which you would know if you had read the rest of the conversation properly. Other than that, you didn't actually address anything I pointed out, so I agree, we're done.

@Insaneoflex: In a libertarian system, government has no involvement in the economy, and politicians being payed by CEOs is a case of government being involved in the economy. That's straightforward enough, and it has nothing to do with categorizing commodities. I don't know where you even got that. Meanwhile, money has value because it's what you use to buy goods and services. That's all there is to it, and that's all there needs to be.

@MetroidJunkie: I completely agree with that statement, but I don't see how it's relevant to anything I'm saying. Heck, without some kind of constitution, we could hardly guarantee the non-aggression principle, now could we? Are you two and MrGlide sure you're properly brushed up on the specifics of the mindset you're attacking?

[Jon]

I'm apparently more libertarian-leaning than authoritarian (although the L word is given a rather bad name by the US) but I absolutely do not believe in a free market. How does that work?

[Budoka]

Like KontraKommando said, the left-right axis is the one that measures economics. So I for example would show up in the bottom right section. However, once you add in the Globalism dimension, it complicates everything.

As for Varg, when you look up the material he produces, it's often difficult to assess what he is or isn't. I've given up paying much attention to his hijinks a long time ago, and frankly, every time I see him try to come across as well-meaning and non-assuming, I feel like he's insulting my intelligence.

[insanoflex312]

Budoka said:

@Insaneoflex: In a libertarian system, government has no involvement in the economy, and politicians being payed by CEOs is a case of government being involved in the economy. That's straightforward enough, and it has nothing to do with categorizing commodities. I don't know where you even got that. Meanwhile, money has value because it's what you use to buy goods and services. That's all there is to it, and that's all there needs to be.

Oh, OK. Just like that huh, money has value? Taxatio isn't involvement? This is why I don't debate libertarians. Also the CEO thing, the government regulating what someone can do with their money is.....regulation

[Spectre01]

PureSlime said:

Taking a dump 2016

Either him or Hilary and I sure ain't voting Hilary. It's time to make America great again.

TheEndOfUs said:

Varg Video

Now I've never been a fan of Varg or his music but this man is absolutely correct in what he says.

[Budoka]

insanoflex312 said:

Oh, OK. Just like that huh, money has value? Taxatio isn't involvement? This is why I don't debate libertarians. Also the CEO thing, the government regulating what someone can do with their money is.....regulation

Of course taxation is involvement, but I just pointed out why money doesn't need taxation to work. And don't be disingenuous, keeping public and private structures strictly separate is the literal opposite of economic planning. If you're unable to make the distinction, I can't help you...

[insanoflex312]

Um no. You have it backwards. Money doesn't have value because we use it. We use it because it has value. That's not hard to follow right? Good. It has value because you have to use it to pay taxes. It would be useless otherwise. Don't believe me? Then explain why a group of people would start using a new type of property(in this case money) before that group of people gave it value. Why did we start using money in the first place? I'll give you a hint: Its not because we could buy things with it. That came afterwards. I can't even get into the next part before you understand basic economics. Also, if you want to be condescending, you must first be correct, and well you're not.

[thaquoth]

PureSlime said:

Yikes.

Man, Vikernes... that guy is just depressing.

Subscribed himself to profoundly stupid ideology in his teens (which happens. see: threads all over the internet like this one) to the point of arson & murder. Paid for that with a lifetime in jail. All the while being worshipped by idiots in Burzum shirts who actually listen to the nonsense he says. Which just enabled him further doubling down on that shit.

Result: broken old narcissistic delusional white supremacist.

Sad.

[Budoka]

insanoflex312 said:

Um no. You have it backwards. Money doesn't have value because we use it. We use it because it has value.

It doesn't. Wealth and currency are two very distinct things. Even radical Keynesians aren't trying to tell me that the value of currency is determined by taxation. Not even in a video focused entirely on the topic of taxes.

[insanoflex312]

Taxation is the regulation of wealth. The medium of wealth is currency. Answer my challenge.

[Budoka]

Nope. Your wealth is merely defined through everything you have access to and consider valuable. As for the adoption by people of a particular currency, it is based on the scarcity of resources.

[insanoflex312]

I gave you the definition of wealth that I'm using. You're not reading my posts. Why would the scarcity of resources have anything to do with why I should value some paper with a face on it or gold rocks?

[Budoka]

I meant everyone independently, not you in particular. And this here is why scarcity define values why arbitrary policy-based value leads to disaster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF_zbI5j7M&index=8&list=PL3C397F4A32D855FD

[Kontra Kommando]

thaquoth said:

Man, Vikernes... that guy is just depressing.

Subscribed himself to profoundly stupid ideology in his teens (which happens. see: threads all over the internet like this one) to the point of arson & murder. Paid for that with a lifetime in jail. All the while being worshipped by idiots in Burzum shirts who actually listen to the nonsense he says. Which just enabled him further doubling down on that shit.

Result: broken old narcissistic delusional white supremacist.

Sad.

As a musician, I think he is good, Aske was a great EP.(one of my favorite). But his worldview is just to be a hardcore LARPER. I disagree with his views of science, genetics, medicine, history, politics, civilization; basically almost everything (he dismisses it all as some kind of elaborate deceit.). Who really would like to go back to the stone-age?

EDIT: He believes that technology has made people weak, yet he has utilized the internet to get his message across. That within and of itself should put into question the integrity of what he's saying.

EDIT 2: Personally, I believe our technological advancements should be celebrated as an expression of human ingenuity. It is what separates us from the animals. If physical strength and a feral lifestyle is what determined superiority; than the world would be ruled by rhinos, elephants, and whales. The fact that cave men invented tools is why the fucking saber-tooth tiger isn't at the top of the food chain.

EDIT 3: Sorry, but Odin does not exist.

[VGamingJunkie]

Wealth is defined as "an abundance of valuable possessions or money" and isn't tied exclusively to just currency.

[june gloom]

Ah, Varg, that crazy fucking Nazi. I enjoy Mayhem for what it is -- a massive trainwreck with some pretty good music -- but let's not pretend that just about everyone who's been in that band isn't a bad person or at least supremely messed up on some level.

[Kontra Kommando]

dethtoll said:

Ah, Varg, that crazy fucking Nazi. I enjoy Mayhem for what it is -- a massive trainwreck with some pretty good music -- but let's not pretend that just about everyone who's been in that band isn't a bad person or at least supremely messed up on some level.

With Fenriz on drums too.

Pretty crazy considering he murdered Euronymous. This should be pretty historical.

[Budoka]

Nice upload date, too. Has Burzum ever been live anyway? Also, that's an interesting top comment from Varg considering he attempted not too long ago to convince French interviewers that he was definitely NOT a Neo-Nazi... pretty tasteless.

[Kontra Kommando]

Budoka said:

Nice upload date, too.

LOL I knew it was too far fetched.

[Nuxius]

Moderate (or Centrist) here. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. (for USA standards, that is) NOT a Libertarian though, as they take it to the extreme.

I have yet to find a politician (much less a political party) that shares my opinion.

My results last time I did the isidewith test.




I don't think I've changed much since then.

[Budoka]

"Extreme" relative to what? The currently mainstream positions, because they self-identify as moderate?

insanoflex312 said:

you must first be correct, and well you're not.

Apparently I was. Seems like if either of us jumped the gun, it wasn't me...