Worlok

Maybe it is because you are a lefty that you seem perplexed by what you perceive as a majority of the forum's support to "republicans" or right wing politics. I posit that collectivism (the left) is anti-personal freedom. Also, authoritarian is anti-freedom. the only logical conclusion (that I can come up with) is that only right wing anarchism lacks inherent control or anti-freedom principles. That would make leftist libertarianism contradictory. Big government is a form of collectivism. However, collectives are made up of individuals. Big government republicans don't seem to be individualist on a large scale, but a personal scale. We call that corporatism and authoritarian. Whether you have big or small government on the left, you are still dealing with a collective claiming greater rights to individuals on a basis that it not only serves the collective, but the individual. Theft, rape, and murder are not okay, but they are acceptable if they benefit the collective. (in this entirely plausible example) That is leftist because it supports the collective. On the right, it is not only not okay, but it also is not acceptable because it stomps on the rights of the victims. Most of us would seem to be right wing because left wing is inherently anti-freedom on an individual scale. Politicians are politicians for a reason. They want something. It is more common to want something for yourself than others. All good deeds are based on self-pleasure or self-benefit by one's beliefs. No matter what you do, you are invariably doing it for you. Everything politicians vote for is for their own benefit. However, they get more benefit if they disregard the rights of others and vote only for their benefit instead of benefiting for good deeds. They therefore disregard others very often. It's not that leftist politicians are all wrong and just do messed up stuff. It's also not that righty politicians are all wrong and do messed up stuff. It's simply that whatever good that politicians are there to do will almost always lead to disregarding the rights and benefit of others for an even greater benefit to themselves. Politicians are made to do this by the system. That's why we hate game, not the player. Right wingers just say they do it for right wing ideas and left wingers don't seem to understand that their good will doesn't work how they want it to. Bernie sanders obviously can't count, or he's just helping himself. If you allow the system to collapse, you are not initiating violence. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you aren't proactively allowing a system to occur where violence must occur to correct the collapse. My question to that is; By not using violence to prevent violence that you know will occur, are you not indirectly and knowingly responsible for the initiation of force, and is that thus equally immoral? On the other hand, if you use the system and thus violence to fix the system and make the system and state as least violent as possible, you are directly initiating force. My question to that is, If the state already has the laws and already initiates violence, if you pass only laws that lower the use of violence, is that not then a negative initiation of violence, and is that not more moral than simply allowing greater violence?

Bollocks, what a limited test. The answers needed to have neutral and "all options are wrong" options. How many of the questions are stated and possible answers make it impossible to honestly answer. Rape is good? Options: Yes / I agree / correct. All three are incorrect answers, but the only answers that I have to choose from... Economic Left/Right: 6. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian. - 5.9 They turned my unavoidable lies on their bullshit question/answer sheet into being over authoritarian and leftist. I'm more libertarian right than they allowed.

My post wasn't based on free trade itself, but central banking that we have now. We can and do print that much money. In the last two decades, the value of the dollar has halved. All money, of course, is loaned into existence. We use the same debtors as we always have. The U.S. population. Now, as I've said previously, I'm not suggesting that we steal more, just spend what we steal on other things. Again, the problem isn't that we have debt, the problem is that we create more debt by paying more and more people more and more money not to work. With de-regulation, tax reform (lowering excessive tax rates to increase tax receipts and loaning/investment) and federal spending cuts, you get increased need for central bank loans, which spreads out the money printed. Essentially, more trade and production increases actual worth, while the inflation (printing money) lowers the value of your debt and interest. The inflation not only devalues debt and interest, but it also devalues savings. Politically and economically, we can either have a revolution of some sort, meaning that the shit hits the fan and that you understand that shit hitting a fan in your living room actually sends human feces spewing all over you, your family, your couch, your carpet and drapes. I mean the shit really hits the fan and there are actual severe consequences. Second, we can use politics and economics to fix the problem and change the system by using the system. I'm vying for people wising up and hopefully the second option occurring.

I would say that the main idea is that violence is bad and we are a "group" of fact based, free thinking individuals interested in conceiving a social or political system that will naturally function with the least amount of violence possible. Governments are violence, social welfare is violence, so on and so forth is violence. Violence bad, everybody leaving me the fuck alone is good.

The point already was made (by him?) that those Muslims are brainwashed by their government and media propaganda. Which isn't a legitimate point that western propaganda says there are so many radicals... Because there, in fact, are so many. So regardless of propaganda, there are huge amounts of Muslim extremists and inviting them into our homes is a bad idea. If there is a group of ten people and you are told that 2 of them are child rapists, but nobody knows which ones, are you going to pick from that group of ten people to babysit your children? Or is getting your children molested better than discriminating against a group of people that partially consists of child rapists? Facts, as have already been presented in this thread show that there are large percentage of what we consider to be "extremist" or "radical" Muslims and you don't want a child molester to babysit for you. We can't actually determine if they are Muslim extremists or part of ISIS reliably. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/ Had anybody actually determined that trump actually means all Muslims or just not allowing people from terrorist supporting states? I assume the second and can't find an official clarification. Anybody have one?

State Welfare is bad. Period. However, less bad is better than more bad. BIG, cuts out massive spending on government workers and costs for the hundreds of welfare programs and departments. The system is superior to the one we have now. Because of (that's how I'm starting this sentence) all of the people receiving social welfare not being at all willing to give up their free stuff, we have to cut welfare, but use fancy words to confuse idiots into not knowing that it's happening. The first thing we do is instate BIG, but make sure it costs not $1 more than our current system. It either needs to be flat across the board "everyone gets the same check," or having it on a sliding scale where the check shrinks slower than income, so that it's always better to get a better paying job than being government dependant (what we have now.) Second, we never, ever raise the BIG, so inflation basically makes it irrelevant and then we get rid of it when your $20,000 check is equal to $20 adjusted for inflation.

I think that your first "fact" is a bit off when you suggest that money is in some way "equal" to the sum of available goods and services. If I dig up guild or print money, goods and services don't materialize magically. It seems to be a confused explanation of supply and demand if not a confused understanding. Your theory seems to ignore inflation, I.e., printing money. If money is printed too fast, not only does your savings lose value, but debt and interest you owe loses value. You will have more value by having items + their debt/interest than if you saved money. The debt/ interest and savings lose value, but the items you bought don't lose their value unless they stop functioning or aren't of use to you anymore. Inflation negates debt. Supply and demand maintains goods and services and trade. Competition and technological improvement/advancement make goods commonly available. Really, there are two problems. Inflation in the U.S. is used to create debt by paying the poor "lazy" huge sums of money, thus lowering production. We need production to pay the debt. Second, we need the money printed to be spread out for people to actually spend, which means we need higher wages. However, we can't use the first problem to solve the second problem... Which is exactly what big government and the left are doing and want more of. The rich, middle class, and the poor need to make more money to justify the inflation, but they have to earn it. Destroy the welfare state and excessive spending (they are one and the same) is what I suggest.