Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Political inclination of this forum as a whole.

Announcements Posted on
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Libertarianism was originally a lefty term and lefty position. It's only been adopted by the right relatively recently. Right libertarianism doesn't actually stand much scrutiny.
    Yeah good one. Not like we have never heard that before. And it is not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Yeah good one. Not like we have never heard that before. And it is not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.
    Are you denying it?
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Are you denying it?
    No. I just don't care.

    Modern day liberals stole the term liberal off us so we understand how it feels.

    Liberals today being people who are liberal with other peoples money.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    No. I just don't care.

    Modern day liberals stole the term liberal off us so we understand how it feels.

    Liberals today being people who are liberal with other peoples money.
    In this country, liberal still retains its classic meaning somewhat. It usually means someone who is socially liberal and economically basically in favour of capitalism.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I note you're not denying the absurdity of libertarian right ideas!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I note you're not denying the absurdity of libertarian right ideas!
    Which one(s), I'll be the first to admit there are a few crackheads out their, usually the non-econimists like Rothbard and Rand.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Which one(s), I'll be the first to admit there are a few crackheads out their, usually the non-econimists like Rothbard and Rand.
    I demolished Classic Liberal over on the Burkean Conservative thread.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    In this country, liberal still retains its classic meaning somewhat. It usually means someone who is socially liberal and economically basically in favour of capitalism.
    In western europe and North America, liberal from the 21st century are exactly as the progressives of the 50's onwards.

    If anybody prooudly says "I am a liberal!" without being aware of the history of liberalism, or a BNP sort of person is describing someone (or think that these people) that talks about giving prisoners more rights, they'll say "damn anti-british liberals!!", yeah those sort of liberals that are dominant today.

    I've noticed that eastern european and scandanavia parties stick by liberal as a term meaning roughly what classical liberalism did, but the kind of 20th centrury version of neo-liberals economiaclly and kind of center ground (between libertarian and authoritarian) socially.

    The only real liberals left today are right-libertarians.

    Ironically libertarian was nicked from the anarchists (who have to be called left anarchists now haha) and pre-marx socialists (who now have to be called libertarian socialists, syndicalists, anarcho-somethings etc etc haha), we nicked libertarian off you and liberal was nicked of us.

    Though as I have always thought, market anarchism is the only true, and purest form of libertarianism in every sense, it should really be called market panarchy, I'm sure you've heard of panarchy, since rothbard buggered it all up with stupidly coming up with the name "anarcho-capitalist" uuurrghh, he then admitted he was wrong and came up with "nonarcist capitalism" after his brief stint with karl hess, then he f****** off with the pale-conservative racists and "old-right" republicans in the 80's/90's and abandoned everything.

    Again, I think the mutualists have it down pretty solid in areas of market anarchism (free market-anti-capitalism).
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Individualism is philosophically flawed as I have pointed out elsewhere.
    Have you read any of them, alteast read the brief entries on Mutualism, Georgism and Agorism over at wikipedia, come out of the box and you might find something you like, I know I did and it cleared up my ignorance about anti-capitalists and taxes.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    tbh, I don't know much about mutualism, but what I do know I don't like. I don't understand how private property would not lead to a class society.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Have you read any of them, alteast read the brief entries on Mutualism, Georgism and Agorism over at wikipedia, come out of the box and you might find something you like, I know I did and it cleared up my ignorance about anti-capitalists and taxes.
    Individualism is flawed philosophically - it doesn't matter how you dress it up.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I demolished Classic Liberal over on the Burkean Conservative thread.
    I don't see how arguing about fractional reserve and whether keyenes was a closet socialist (he was, and would be horrified at the skewing and manipulation of his ideas) demolishes every single right-libertarian philosophy.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    I don't see how arguing about fractional reserve and whether keyenes was a closet socialist (he was, and would be horrified at the skewing and manipulation of his ideas) demolishes every single right-libertarian philosophy.
    It was my demolishing of individualism I'm referring to.

    Keynes was not a socialist btw. He was a capitalist through and through, he was attempting to save capitalism.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    It was my demolishing of individualism I'm referring to.

    Keynes was not a socialist btw. He was a capitalist through and through, he was attempting to save capitalism.
    I was supposed to put "he wasn't" haha

    If you read the second half of my bracketed post you'll see where my reasoning lines up, he wasn't a closet socialits like most vulgar austrians like to suggest, and he was horrified, in fact he told Hayek how bad it was that people were taking all his arguments to be correct, and even mixing them with their own ideas to distort his and make it seem like this is what he advocated. If I had to say it, I would if Keyens lived through the 20th century, he and Milton Friedman would have been identical.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Individualism is flawed philosophically - it doesn't matter how you dress it up.
    I believe outright collectivism is a flawed philsophy, so I discredit all authoritarian and statist strains of socialism, the democratic socialists and vulgar marxists (who marx said he wouldn't even be one of!!!). However, because I disagree with doesn't mean I disagree with all strains, mutualism (seriously read the entry, or atleast read Proudhon's biography, he was the original anarchist btw) is most certainly not individualist, and with georgism, I don't know how you could get more collectivist that a land value tax tbh.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    I believe outright collectivism is a flawed philsophy, so I discredit all authoritarian and statist strains of socialism, the democratic socialists and vulgar marxists (who marx said he wouldn't even be one of!!!). However, because I disagree with doesn't meat I disagree with all strains, mutualism (seriously read the entry, or atleast read Proudhon's biography, he was the original anarchist btw) is most certainly not individualist, and with georgism, I don't know how you could get more collectivist that a land value tax tbh.
    If you want me to demolish you too, get yerself over to the thread in question!

    Proudhon was not "the original anarchist" btw, far from it. Anarchism's roots can be traced back much further. Peter Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible" is worth a read for a history of anarchism.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    If you want me to demolish you too, get yerself over to the thread in question!

    Proudhon was not "the original anarchist" btw, far from it. Anarchism's roots can be traced back much further. Peter Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible" is worth a read for a history of anarchism.
    Demolish me at what?

    You are certainly shifting some air through that trumpet.

    Proudhon is believed to be the original anarchist in what we see as anarchy today, you can go back to the 6th century and there was some guy I forget the name of who basically said that we should oppose the law of second best in terms of expoitation, and we should oppose all authority.

    This wasn't revived until robert own in the late 1700's and then Proudhon simply ran with it and anarchy as you and me know it, was born of out the french societal changes of the mid-late 1800's.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    I don't think it is, its a 4 string power chord in which you place you palm closer to the bridge pickup, dig in hard as ****, and you basically have the djent sound, an eq of a bass cut, mid boost and whatever treble is suited to your guitars natural wood tone helps too, whether it is a guitar technique or a tone is another debate, but it certainly isn't a genre. The core' kids have basically taken it and run with it, now 'djent' is either a genre or is a low tuned, rhythmically percussive groove which involve open-string rapeage and lots of bends and stop/start odd time signature breakdowns.

    I said people have turned it into a genre, not that it is one.

    If you listen to Misha Mansoors old demo's - insomnia, and Meshuggah's 90's albums they incorporate the djent chord all the time, then misha populised it, people got the wrong end of the stick, and thought that the low tuned grooves of meshuggah's later albums, like Northing and Catch 33, or periphery's groovier songs like Icarus Lives, mean djent.

    Its a farce.

    I don't even like 95% of the bands.

    I'm going through a progressive deathcore and ambient music phase right know

    Substructure songs, Canis Major, Telescopium, a band called Born of osiris, their new album the discovery has been on repeat in my car for 3 weeks

    Ahh, Born Of Osiris. Learnt most of the Follow The Signs solo and Recreate. Brilliant album, The Discovery. I will look the others up presently.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Demolish me at what?

    You are certainly shifting some air through that trumpet.

    Proudhon is believed to be the original anarchist in what we see as anarchy today, you can go back to the 6th century and there was some guy I forget the name of who basically said that we should oppose the law of second best in terms of expoitation, and we should oppose all authority.

    This wasn't revived until robert own in the late 1700's and then Proudhon simply ran with it and anarchy as you and me know it, was born of out the french societal changes of the mid-late 1800's.
    Considered by who? What about Godwin? Or going back a bit further, Winstanley and the Diggers?
Updated: March 29, 2012
New on TSR

So how did you do?

Come into the GCSE forum to share your grades

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.