Political and Social Identification

Post Reply New Topic

Didn't vote in the poll because "politically liberal/conservative" is very ambiguous.

I know I'm left-wing enough to not "get" what people would have against say, the government manufacturing our denim jeans.

I don't consider myself to swing either way socially but I'm sure most people see me as more liberal than not. Being a antisocial curmudgeon can throw it off-balance though.

My philosophy of life,
follow always the middle path...
Is important to have a tolerant culture to embrace the divergent thinking and creativity but is also important to have a conservative politics to used moderate e assertive choices to the nation.

Conservative and liberal are such warped terms, people could describe my positions as both extremely liberal and extremely conservative based on the definition you use. I believe in the maximum amount of freedom possible. Personal, economic, whatever.

I'm (mainy) a libertarian communist. I don't believe in markets or states. I believe private property is unnecessary, coercive and subordinative. I believe personal property is more reasonable. I don't believe in any third party arbitration or defense. I believe the community itself should create it's own rules. I believe each individual should be able to create their own curriculum and job from the bottom up. I believe in autonomy within the school and in the workplace. I think all unnecessary hierarchy should be abolished.

What's the distinction between private and personal property?

So you don't actually believe in property rights, only usage rights?

Why is owning a factory different from owning a house? What if I wanted to rent that house out to another person, would I suddenly lose ownership of it? What if it's something like a computer - say a server, which I'm not going to use for my personal use, but to maintain my business website?

What if I've built the factory building myself, and bought all the equipment? What if someone else built the factory building, and I bought it off them?

You can't draw a line and say, "this is personal property" and "this isn't" like that when it comes to manmade objects. Or at least, you can't claim in any way to be a libertarian if you do.

Now, I can understand people who don't believe land can be owned. I can see their point there. But setting some arbitrary limit on how much someone can keep what they've produced? Erm, no.

Employing someone =/= dominating and ruling over them. If they don't want to work for you, they can quit. You have this bizarre idea that employing someone is wrong, and so is trade...

Sure, you have the freedom to quit if you have a bad boss. But what if the job market is scarce? Then you just have the freedom to starve. Or what if your boss is a vindictive bastard who black lists you with other employers? Even to be between jobs with an amiable split from your work place means lack of income and security. That freedom to leave isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Then go work for yourself. Or homestead some unused land. Or maybe go find a mutualist company that needs your skills. Then blacklist the employer and get them boycotted and driven out of business. It's a free market, after all.

Hence why established businesses often love the state, because it keeps the labour market under their control...

Yes. In this day an age. With modern techniques and knowledge. Obviously...

RushKing, no-one is "forced" to sign the contract in a free market. What you seem to want is to force them to not sign it... just like a petty statist.