What's your personal ideology?

[MCockerill08]

This should be interesting...

[brandon]

I change back and forth between minarchist and an-cap pretty frequently.

I guess I see an-cap as being the ideal society, but at the same time i'm pretty sure it's unattainable. So my pragmatic side supports minarchism.

[MCockerill08]

I change back and forth between minarchist and an-cap pretty frequently.

I guess I see an-cap as being the ideal society, but at the same time i'm pretty sure it's unattainable. So my pragmatic side supports minarchism.

I'm a minarchist and I strongly agree with your second paragraph. THe idea of no universal court system and private defense agencies to wage war scares the crap out of me.

Of course, that's not to say that the military, police, etc aren't profoundly evil right now, but I think that if we strictly limited their activities (by taking away unconstitutional laws and wars) they wouldn't necessarily have to be evil. We just have to realize that they are the state and keep a very close eye on them. :]

[Crash Martinez]

I've said it before: based on my flawed, finite human reasoning, I'm certain I would most naturally be an anarcho-capitalist. Nevertheless, for the sake of defending people's rights against all aggressors (and ONLY for that purpose!), I believe God has established and ordained human governments, simply because the Bible makes that point abundantly clear.
So: oft-confused but faithful Christian minarchist.

[cthulhufan]

I'm a minarchist and I strongly agree with your second paragraph. THe idea of no universal court system and private defense agencies to wage war scares the crap out of me.

Of course, that's not to say that the military, police, etc aren't profoundly evil right now, but I think that if we strictly limited their activities (by taking away unconstitutional laws and wars) they wouldn't necessarily have to be evil. We just have to realize that they are the state and keep a very close eye on them. :]

Seconded.

[PatriotLegion]

Sure an almost anarchy society would be great but I think it would conflict with capitalism abit so I'm for Minarchist...

[Uriel999]

I don't like the idea of private armies. Then again I think if we are not at war we should not have a military at all.

[Kludge]

I'm not a minarchist, but I'm pretty far South in the Nolan chart.

Guess I'm an anti-war liberal now.... Weird.

[Freedom 4 all]

Minarchist for sure. The government that governs least governs best. I believe that but it doesn't imply no gov at all.

[mediahasyou]

http://voluntaryist.com/

[RevolutionSD]

People who still favor some kind of government do so out of fear.

[mconder]

Government determinately has a role in protecting the innocent from criminal acts. And when I say criminal act, I mean criminal according to the old school common law sense. Everything is a criminal act today. The things I am talking about is causing unsolicited physical harm to people against their will and all theft/destruction of private property. These are the only real crimes. Government is also necessary to enforce contract law. I think there is an obvious need in protecting your borders from those who may want to come into your country and subvert it's free principles. Other than that, the government itself should not be allowed to own any real property, only lease it. It should stick to prosecuting & incarcerating true criminals as described above, enforcing contract law, and protecting from external threat. Our government should be forbidden from making treaties. Money to pay for the government should be recovered from those incarcerated. Military should be funded voluntary contribution. In times of peace contributions will be low. In times of threat contributions will be high. Just as in a time of real invasion, everyone volunteers to be a soldier. Of course, this is another reason we must seal the borders. If there was an invasion from Mexico todays circumstance, the Californians would volunteer to fight with Mexico. I like the idea of 50 sovereign states who can each have their own form of government with the exception of being able to close boarders to migration and trade. If one state wants an FDA type orgnization, then great...there should be 49 other states I can flee to.

[Young Paleocon]

liberal in what sense? Classic or welfare state?

[Roxi]

i repeat, i am an minarcho-capitalist conservitarian

[heavenlyboy34]

i repeat, i am an minarcho-capitalist conservitarian

lol...How many personalities do you have? :eek::confused: I'm up to about 3 myself, I think. ;):D

[Andrew-Austin]

Anarcho-capitalism is still resonating pretty well with me. Would probably be content with a pretty local minarchy though.

[nate895]

conservitarian

I like that term. I might just adopt it.

[Kludge]

liberal in what sense? Classic or welfare state?

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are terrible words. They have been made rendered useless, vague, and misleading. I do not know whether or not it was intentional, but the destruction of the words have made a real and significant impact on the (lack of) thought in American politics. There's a false left-right paradigm, but few even know what the "left" or "right" is.

When I say liberal, I consider it to be the voice of all people in a collective represented. The most liberal idea I can think of would be direct democracy on the federal level. Conservatism on the other hand, is "conserved" in the number of people who have a voice. Voting is often indirect, attempting to keep competence in voting on issues of importance. Of course, when the majority of Americans are idiots AND vote, it doesn't matter which system we have (with the exception of the Bill of Rights, which I consider to be a conservative document). I am a liberal because I believe in equality under law and in their representation in government. In a conservative government, small minorities may not be represented at all. In a liberal government, everyone (who votes) is represented. Of course, in a liberal government, there would be no Bill of Rights. From a pragmatic standpoint, conservatism is probably better. Even so, the ignoring of any person's voice because they are not numerous enough is unethical, IMO.

[Kludge]

I also don't think the OP (or many voters, for that matter) understands what minarchism is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Ron Paul is NOT a Minarchist. He is a VERY libertarian conservative.

[Young Paleocon]

Didn't the early classic liberals oppose universal democracy because they thought it mob rule?

[nate895]

Didn't the early classic liberals oppose universal democracy because they thought it mob rule?

Yes

[Kludge]

Didn't the early classic liberals oppose universal democracy because they thought it mob rule?

I'm unsure. Early American liberals may have been originalists. I'm not too well-read on the subject as I ought to and want to be. I think an originalist liberal is contrary however, because I believe it to be in line with individual rights (the key principle in liberalism) to give everyone an equal say (mob rule).

[Brassmouth]

THe idea of no universal court system and private defense agencies to wage war scares the crap out of me.

Of course, that's not to say that the military, police, etc aren't profoundly evil right now, but I think that if we strictly limited their activities (by taking away unconstitutional laws and wars) they wouldn't necessarily have to be evil. We just have to realize that they are the state and keep a very close eye on them. :]

What a nice fantasy. "If we put down the proper rules, maybe the State will stop fucking us so hard." You minarchists are so amusing. And how effective is the current, socialized court system? You'd need a fortune and about a decade before you might get a result.

Just like any other good or service, the market will handle courts and everything else exponentially better than the State currently "handles" them. You should also research the DRO concept.

[The_Orlonater]

What a nice fantasy. "If we put down the proper rules, maybe the State will stop fucking us so hard." You minarchists are so amusing. And how effective is the current, socialized court system? You'd need a fortune and about a decade before you might get a result.

Just like any other good or service, the market will handle courts and everything else exponentially better than the State currently "handles" them. You should also research the DRO concept.

And how would you call this society minarchic? :rolleyes:

[Jeremy]

Anarcho-Capitalism (like Lew Rockwell and many Austrian Economists)

Out of the six famous Austrian economists only one of them was an anarchist. Five of them were minarchists...

[Jeremy]

I'm unsure. Early American liberals may have been originalists. I'm not too well-read on the subject as I ought to and want to be. I think an originalist liberal is contrary however, because I believe it to be in line with individual rights (the key principle in liberalism) to give everyone an equal say (mob rule).

Democracy = a mob of people running your life (not being left alone or having freedom). How is this complicated?

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

anarchoecoconservatarian

[amy31416]

It's kind of weird, but I don't really know exactly what I am. It's most important to me to first end the bullshit wars, so economics (though intertwined) is secondary. I can't stand most people, but I'm a humanist first and foremost because I think more people should have the opportunity to be just like me. :p

All kidding aside, it's hard to focus on specific economic philosophy when people are being murdered for simply being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I do firmly believe that philanthropy should be entirely voluntary in order for humanity to evolve. And I think that's something that most "liberal" people can't seem to grasp.

It's not an option on the poll, but I'm a naive optimistic humanist first, and if my little utopia were achievable, I'd probably be an anarchist. The realistic side of me puts me into the category of being a social liberal and a fiscal/governmental minarchist, but I don't think that even makes a lot of sense.

Ultimately, I want to eliminate sociopaths and sociopathic behavior, and move on from there. They're the ones who screw everything up and prevent us from finding the best paths. It'd be pretty damned nifty if we real human beings could figure things out without all the BS that they throw our way.

[Conza88]

Imo, Ron Paul is actually an anarcho-capitalist. 30 years in the Austrian School of economics... lol, helllloooo.. :)

Presenting himself as such though would be Liberty movement suicide and completely idiotic. Ron Paul ain't an a idiot. Why alienate people?

There are slight glimpses, wrote about a free market in money in Gold, Peace, Prosperity. But he uses gold standard as a transitional phase.

</speculation/possible slight wishful thinking>

Said this before, but I'd have to ask him personally if he was. (Would not broadcast it, and you'd be a complete dbag if someone did ask him, he told the truth, and they put it up it up on the net)

Regardless if for some profound, illogical reason he was not. Wouldn't change anything. He's the mainstream funnel for the liberty movement. People who go onto study Austrian Economics and read the arguments for anarcho-capitalism ALL pretty much wake up the reality of the state.

It's as simple as that. If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, it's pretty much because you've never read any of the material. Be honest with yourselves now. :D

[Jeremy]

Imo, Ron Paul is actually an anarcho-capitalist. 30 years in the Austrian School of economics... lol, helllloooo.. :)

Presenting himself as such though would be Liberty movement suicide and completely idiotic. Ron Paul ain't an a idiot. Why alienate people?

There are slight glimpses, wrote about a free market in money in Gold, Peace, Prosperity. But he uses gold standard as a transitional phase.

</speculation/possible slight wishful thinking>

Said this before, but I'd have to ask him personally if he was. (Would not broadcast it, and you'd be a complete dbag if someone did ask him, he told the truth, and they put it up it up on the net)

Regardless if for some profound, illogical reason he was not. Wouldn't change anything. He's the mainstream funnel for the liberty movement. People who go onto study Austrian Economics and read the arguments for anarcho-capitalism ALL pretty much wake up the reality of the state.

It's as simple as that. If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, it's pretty much because you've never read any of the material. Be honest with yourselves now. :D

Like I JUST said, 5 of the 6 famous Austrian economists were minarchists not anarchists.

[Bman]

What a nice fantasy. "If we put down the proper rules, maybe the State will stop fucking us so hard." You minarchists are so amusing. And how effective is the current, socialized court system? You'd need a fortune and about a decade before you might get a result.

Just like any other good or service, the market will handle courts and everything else exponentially better than the State currently "handles" them. You should also research the DRO concept.

Yeah, EXACTLY!!! Because, just like when the anarcho-capitalist country.. ugh I mean jsut like when the large group of people who were anarcho-capi... ugh , ugh , oh yeh like the fictional world in a book i read said...

Get real. Get a living model of your ideas, rather than thinking your ideas as superior to others with no evidence that it can actually work. You may want to laugh at minarchists. But at least we can point to early america as a working model of it and see how it was and where it did go wrong. You guys act like you have the best idea in the world and it's never even functioned. How certain are you that your spruce goose can fly. And since you think it can. Why not search some small area were you can all get together and at least test it out.

[Conza88]

Out of the six famous Austrian economists only one of them was an anarchist. Five of them were minarchists...

Name them. Tell me which ones AFTER Rothbard are minarchists. lol


"The history of thought and ideas is a discourse carried on from generation to generation. The thinking of later ages grows out of the thinking of earlier ages. Without the aid of this stimulation intellectual progress would have been impossible. The continuity of human evolution, sowing for the offspring and harvesting on land cleared and tilled by the ancestors, manifests itself also in the history of science and ideas.

We have inherited from our forefathers not only a stock of products of various orders of goods which is the source of our material wealth; we have no less inherited ideas and thoughts, theories and technologies to which our thinking owes its productivity. But thinking is always a manifestation of individuals."- Page 178, Human Action.

[Conza88]

Yeah, EXACTLY!!! Because, just like when the anarcho-capitalist country.. ugh I mean jsut like when the large group of people who were anarcho-capi... ugh , ugh , oh yeh like the fictional world in a book i read said...

Get real. Get a living model of your ideas, rather than thinking your ideas as superior to others with no evidence that it can actually work. You may want to laugh at minarchists. But at least we can point to early america as a working model of it and see how it was and where it did go wrong. You guys act like you have the best idea in the world and it's never even functioned. How certain are you that your spruce goose can fly. And since you think it can. Why not search some small area were you can all get together and at least test it out.

Oh ffs. Seriously, if you don't believe something is credible until it exists, we'd still be in the stone age with your bullshit logic. Go to the moon? Freedom instead of oppression? "Get a working model, you suck and so does your idea. Show me it in the real world".

You've got a 5th grader mentality.

Do you have ANY concept of Praxeology? Human action? A priori reasoning? :eek:

There IS evidence, however the CONSTITUTION (trying to limit the state) DOESN'T WORK.

Take a look around you. :rolleyes:

Pwned.

[Jeremy]

How daaaaaaaare uuuu!! What makes pre-Rothbard Austrian economists worth less then Rothbard? Mises > Rothbard! :D

[Jeremy]

oh and anarchy is utopian since a government will rise up to fill the vacuum. and it will be like a Stalin kind of government

[sevin]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/178540162v2_150x150_Front.jpg

[Conza88]

How daaaaaaaare uuuu!! What makes pre-Rothbard Austrian economists worth less then Rothbard? Mises > Rothbard! :D

Nothing does, their contributions were profound to the Austrian School of Economics.

They had big fish to fry, the labor theory of value, marginal utility, new deal, interventionism, ABCT, sound money, blah blah - the list could go on forever.

The point is:
Mises built open Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Carl Menger etc. Just as Rothbard built open Mises.

And just as Hoppe is now building open Rothbard, in terms of what was not entirely addressed because other theories, articles etc etc were being developed.

Democracy was one of the things, Mises and Rothbard never overtly pounded upon. Because it wasn't as big an issue as it is now. The equation of Democracy and Liberty is irrational.

If you want the truth you go to Rothbard, you go to anarcho-capitalism.

Atm, you've been given an avenue of greater enlightenment but you choose to ignore. You fail remarkably. Truth > fear of the unknown.

:rolleyes:


oh and anarchy is utopian since a government will rise up to fill the vacuum. and it will be like a Stalin kind of government

Mindless bullshit in an attempt to justify your position, within yourself.


4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.

[Bman]

Oh ffs. Seriously, if you don't believe something is credible until it exists, we'd still be in the stone age with your bullshit logic. Go to the moon? Freedom instead of oppression? "Get a working model, you suck and so does your idea. Show me it in the real world".

Ummm. Nothing is credible till it exists. That just happens to be a fact between theory and, well fact.


You've got a 5th grader mentality.

Ouch. How shall I respond. Well maybe by suggesting you are the missing link? Please. I like how you try and credit yourself as some over educated genius. I'm sure your walls are completely lined with degrees from credible locations. Whatever, I'm sure when you play make believe all the time it's easy to feel far superior than anyone else.

Go live a little. Get to know people. You are clueless



Do you have ANY concept of Praxeology? Human action? A priori reasoning? :eek:


Why yes. However, maybe you need to refresh your knowledge of these words. Having the beliefs you do I can't see why I would believe you have any rational of these words past your looking glass self.


There IS evidence, however the CONSTITUTION (trying to limit the state) DOESN'T WORK.

No, well, lets say your last comment could be classifed as true. It's just a sign based upon praxeology that your idea is more off base than my idea.



Take a look around you. :rolleyes:

Ok. I did. I'm in my office. Did you move something?

Face it. I'll say it again. You are clueless. Now hold on so am I. But you take the cake.


Pwned.

Lets see there's a word for people like you.

Ah, yes there it is.

DELUSIONAL

[Theocrat]

I voted that I'm a "minarchist," but that is justified from a theocratic outlook on civil government. Since God is the Creator of the entire universe, and He ordains all forms of government (self, family, church, and civil), no one government should take the place of Him and His power, wisdom, and authority. Thus, it becomes necessary that a civil government be small in its power, although necessary to protect the innocent and punish evildoers (Romans 13).

[Andrew-Austin]

1. I think its silly for minarchists and anarchists to bicker, since they both share the same goal in drastically reducing the size of government.

2. Its also silly to chastise someone's political philosophy as too "idealistic".
Anarchy, minarchy, statism, etc are all rooted in ideas. If an idea has not been sufficiently tested, that does not make it any less realistic than the ideas that have been tried and failed.

[Bman]

I voted that I'm a "minarchist," but that is justified from a theocratic outlook on civil government. Since God is the Creator of the entire universe, and He ordains all forms of government (self, family, church, and civil), no one government should take the place of Him and His power, wisdom, and authority. Thus, it becomes necessary that a civil government be small in its power, although necessary to protect the innocent and punish evildoers (Romans 13).

So long as the bible isn't what is used to define just and unjust, I'm ok with that reasoning. Otherwise I will have to recite words from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible to make you realize the one true meatball in the sky.

[Theocrat]

So long as the bible isn't what is used to define just and unjust, I'm ok with that reasoning. Otherwise I will have to recite words from the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible to make you realize the one true meatball in the sky.

Without the Bible, there can be no absolute standard between what is just and unjust. That is a subject for a different thread, though.

[Bman]

1. I think its silly for minarchists and anarchists to bicker, since they both share the same goal in drastically reducing the size of government.

2. Its also silly to chastise someone's political philosophy as too "idealistic".
Anarchy, minarchy, statism, etc are all rooted in ideas. If an idea has not been sufficiently tested, that does not make it any less realistic than the ideas that have been tried and failed.

The constitution didn't fail. It's being directly violated. It's the foundation for the very reaoning that people argue against free markets. Because they cannot properly identify what or who failed. It's simple. People failed. And they always will. Now they need to prosecuted.

[Allen72289]

Anarcho-capitalist

Private property rights and a militia is all the u.s. needs.

[Conza88]

The constitution didn't fail. It's being directly violated. It's the foundation for the very reaoning that people argue against free markets. Because they cannot properly identify what or who failed. It's simple. People failed. And they always will. Now they need to prosecuted.

It's education time! :D

The Beginning of American Independence (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/137.mp3)
The American Revolution (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/138.mp3)
The Declaration of Independence (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/139.mp3)
Background to the Constitution (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/149.mp3)
The Constitution Revisited (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/150.mp3)
What is the Right Amount of Government? (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/152.mp3)

Robert LeFevre Commentaries. :)

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
"Power is not alluring to pure minds" - Thomas Jefferson

[Xenophage]

The constitution didn't fail. It's being directly violated. It's the foundation for the very reaoning that people argue against free markets. Because they cannot properly identify what or who failed. It's simple. People failed. And they always will. Now they need to prosecuted.

The constitution sucked. I mean, don't get me wrong it was a big step up for the human race, but it still sucked.

Howver, the REAL failure was American society, standards, and ethos. Even as long as the Constitution sucked, if Americans continued to believe in freedom and understand it we would have been alright. Really, I think all it boils down to is that: do the people want freedom, or don't they? Freedom can't be forced, I'm sure we all know, but it always has to be fought for.

[Xenophage]

Without the Bible, there can be no absolute standard between what is just and unjust. That is a subject for a different thread, though.

I choose morality. I don't have it commanded to me. I've thought about it long and hard over many years, and I've come to the conclusion that the only real sin is the initiation of violence against another human being. God didn't have anything to do with it.

I like drinking, watching tentacle porn, and chronic masturbation to Star Trek TOS as I'm sure many of you have guessed.

Anyway, if you think I'm an evil sinner, sorry.... but I won't ever vote to increase your taxes.

[Bman]

It's education time! :D

The Beginning of American Independence (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/137.mp3)
The American Revolution (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/138.mp3)
The Declaration of Independence (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/139.mp3)
Background to the Constitution (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/149.mp3)
The Constitution Revisited (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/150.mp3)
What is the Right Amount of Government? (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/152.mp3)

Robert LeFevre Commentaries. :)

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
"Power is not alluring to pure minds" - Thomas Jefferson

Thanks for the history lesson on how the constitution came to be and how things can be misconstrued (LeFerve did forget to mention that the first sentences of Article I section 8 is a mission statement and the text afterwards was the actual spelled out authority). I fail to see the relevance to what I said.

You are going to have to spell it out. Because while I heard disagreements with what is in the constitution. While I heard ways in which one could misconstrue the meaning of certain parts, by of course not putting things in context. While I heard some early American history. Which don't get me wrong I didn't mind listening to all of that. It was over all enjoyable. I heard nothing that counters that it isn't the constitution that failed. It's the people that failed.

[Josh_LA]

Anarchist, no hyphenated suffixes.

[Conza88]

Thanks for the history lesson on how the constitution came to be and how things can be misconstrued (LeFerve did forget to mention that the first sentences of Article I section 8 is a mission statement and the text afterwards was the actual spelled out authority). I fail to see the relevance to what I said.

You are going to have to spell it out. Because while I heard disagreements with what is in the constitution. While I heard ways in which one could misconstrue the meaning of certain parts, by of course not putting things in context. While I heard some early American history. Which don't get me wrong I didn't mind listening to all of that. It was over all enjoyable. I heard nothing that counters that it isn't the constitution that failed. It's the people that failed.

The Constitution didn't do what it's purpose was: to limit the growth of government. And the state. To protect rights. It failed in it's objective.

What exactly needs explaining? :confused:

Btw, those links were just grabbed and pasted from another post. I'll tailor them better next time. :)

[youngbuck]

I'm not a minarchist, but I'm pretty far South in the Nolan chart.

Guess I'm a raging hippy liberal douche now.... Weird.

Sounds about right... ;)

[Bman]

The Constitution didn't do what it's purpose was: to limit the growth of government. And the state. To protect rights. It failed in it's objective.

What exactly needs explaining? :confused:

Btw, those links were just grabbed and pasted from another post. I'll tailor them better next time. :)

What exactly needs explaining? How the constitution itself failed. Like pin pointing an exact part of the constitution and showing how it failed. No blanket statements. No saying well look at what we have now type of stuff. Because what we have now is not a constitutional government.

[acptulsa]

The Constitution didn't do what it's purpose was: to limit the growth of government. And the state. To protect rights. It failed in it's objective.

How can a piece of paper have an objective, succeed, or fail? The Constitution was and is a tool that allows us to do these things.

[Kludge]

Sounds about right... ;)

That's only acceptable between friends :) ;)

[Kludge]

Democracy = a mob of people running your life (not being left alone or having freedom).

Because that is sooooooo different from what we have now :rolleyes:

[SnappleLlama]

My personal ideology is: "Have a good time...all of the time."

/Spinal Tap

[acptulsa]

And mine is play 'find the cobra' with the hotel chambermaid.

/A Mighty Wind.

[SnappleLlama]

and mine is play 'find the cobra' with the hotel chambermaid.

/a mighty wind.

rofl!!! :d

[Roxi]

lol...How many personalities do you have? :eek::confused: I'm up to about 3 myself, I think. ;):D


only one personality i think, its just on the fence about everything :)

[Crash Martinez]

I also don't think the OP (or many voters, for that matter) understands what minarchism is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Ron Paul is NOT a Minarchist. He is a VERY libertarian conservative.

The Wikipedia definition is exactly what I mean when I call myself a Minarchist. But you are right: the Constitution goes beyond that role for the State, and Dr. Paul does not go beyond the Constitution in the other direction..