Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

it's very much the "highest level" vs everyone else.

That would be ideal would it not? Too bad it is less then true.

And all we were saying is that they basically want the same things, but have different ideas of how to get there... except for both the libertarian and socialist approaches involve breaking up the unified power structure of government and wealth.  There is enough common ground there for cooperation if both sides could be mature about it.

You just stated the different methods have radically different end points. You can not have both a Libertarian and a Socialist government. They work at direct cross proposes and there will never be enough "common ground" to work together.

Fuck. The Libertarian way does not depower the 1%. It empowers them. It widens the gap.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can not have both a Libertarian and a Socialist government.

U mad, political philosophy?

[ECrownofFire]

Normally, this would be the part where the Libertarian I am steps in and argues, but considering this isn't exactly the thread for that...


Anyway, the point is that they want the same end result of reduced corruption and lobbying. The difference is in the methodology, and various differences in the overall end result.

Oh, and MSH, that's the difference between social and economic Libertarianism.

[Criptfeind]

You can not have both a Libertarian and a Socialist government.

U mad, political philosophy?

Wow. Now I know of yet another completely unworkable political philosophy that relies on humans not being human.

Anyway, the point is that they want the same end result of reduced corruption and lobbying. The difference is in the methodology, and various differences in the overall end result.

Corruption and lobbying are only means to a end. One way is akin to jailing a person for trying to shoot at someone, and the other is like killing the someone so the person does not try to shoot at them. Sure, both ways the person is not shot at. But they are not anywhere close at all.

[SalmonGod]

it's very much the "highest level" vs everyone else.

That would be ideal would it not? Too bad it is less then true.

I honestly don't understand how you can say this, when we have so much evidence these days of how money influences politics, and how obscenely unequal wealth distribution is in the world today.

[

You just stated the different methods have radically different end points. You can not have both a Libertarian and a Socialist government. They work at direct cross proposes and there will never be enough "common ground" to work together.

Fuck. The Libertarian way does not depower the 1%. It empowers them. It widens the gap.

Yes, they both want different things in the end, but first they share a common obstacle.  I'm not saying the two groups could be permanent allies.  I'm saying that they could team up for mutual benefit for the time being if they could put up with one another.

You can not have both a Libertarian and a Socialist government.

U mad, political philosophy?

Wow. Now I know of yet another completely unworkable political philosophy that relies on humans not being human.

Can you name a single political philosophy where this isn't the case?

[Criptfeind]

I honestly don't understand how you can say this, when we have so much evidence these days of how money influences politics, and how obscenely unequal wealth distribution is in the world today.

No no. See. I agree with you. It is just so unorganized that at best it is ineffective and at worse it strengthens the 1%

Yes, they both want different things in the end, but first they share a common obstacle.  I'm not saying the two groups could be permanent allies.  I'm saying that they could team up for mutual benefit for the time being if they could put up with one another.

Ehhh.... Maybe. What would that common obstacle actually be though? And the methods of dealing with it?

Can you name a single political philosophy where this isn't the case?

Well. Judging by the fact human society exists I would say most that are currently being used are at least workable.

[ChairmanPoo]

Given how the status quo is at the moment, they're not working very well.


Maybe that's precisedly the gist of the matter, we have all sorts of political philosophies, but none work particularily well

[ECrownofFire]

Can you name a single political philosophy where this isn't the case?

Well. Judging by the fact human society exists I would say most that are currently being used are at least workable.

Feudalism worked for a long time. Pure monarchies lasted a long time too. Hell, so did despotism.

Given how the status quo is at the moment, they're not working very well.


Maybe that's precisedly the gist of the matter, we have all sorts of political philosophies, but none work particularily well

"... It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried..."

[Criptfeind]

Given how the status quo is at the moment, they're not working very well.


Maybe that's precisedly the gist of the matter, we have all sorts of political philosophies, but none work particularily well

But not all the systems are to blame for what is going on. It is places like the U.S and Iceland who really fucked up.

Feudalism worked for a long time. Pure monarchies lasted a long time too. Hell, so did despotism.

The idea here is to avoid that 1% remember? Those systems only worked for a small number of people. You could just say the current system works because earthworms are doing fine.

[ECrownofFire]

Feudalism worked for a long time. Pure monarchies lasted a long time too. Hell, so did despotism.

The idea here is to avoid that 1% remember? Those systems only worked for a small number of people. You could just say the current system works because earthworms are doing fine.

Not sure exactly why you'd want to avoid having people be successful, but okay.

And the current system is fucked, but judging systems by whether or not they survive is a bad idea.

[Criptfeind]

Not sure exactly why you'd want to avoid having people be successful, but okay.

Are you really trying to debate? Or are you just saying things here? I believe it is clear to mean giving people a larger share of power then they should posses.

And the current system is fucked, but judging systems by whether or not they survive is a bad idea.

You are the one who said that, not me. You will notice the system, in America at least, that fucked us is just a strong if not stronger then before. It sure survived.

[ECrownofFire]

Not sure exactly why you'd want to avoid having people be successful, but okay.

Are you really trying to debate? Or are you just saying things here? I believe it is clear to mean giving people a larger share of power then they should posses.

Just saying that having a 1% isn't necessarily a bad thing. Obviously bad when they take it by force, but still.

And the current system is fucked, but judging systems by whether or not they survive is a bad idea.

You are the one who said that, not me. You will notice the system, in America at least, that fucked us is just a strong if not stronger then before. It sure survived.

You said it here:

Well. Judging by the fact human society exists I would say most that are currently being used are at least workable.

[Criptfeind]

Just saying that having a 1% isn't necessarily a bad thing. Obviously bad when they take it by force, but still.

So. You know what I mean, but just don't care are want to say stuff? Okay then.

You said it here:

Well. Judging by the fact human society exists I would say most that are currently being used are at least workable.

Really? No. No I did not. human society is made of a ton of systems and it goes from one to the next. Society and system are not the same words.

[ECrownofFire]

Just saying that having a 1% isn't necessarily a bad thing. Obviously bad when they take it by force, but still.

So. You know what I mean, but just don't care are want to say stuff? Okay then.

No, I think I just misunderstood what you were saying about the 1%, I thought you were referring to the generic 1%, rather than the 1% within a feudal or other system.

You said it here:

Well. Judging by the fact human society exists I would say most that are currently being used are at least workable.

Really? No. No I did not. human society is made of a ton of systems and it goes from one to the next. Society and system are not the same words.

Didn't you say that since it exists it works? Might just be a slight misunderstanding again.

[Criptfeind]

Since society exists the systems we use are workable.

Edit: Note that workable does not mean best or ideal. Or even long lasting.