I answered honestly and I never voted but just because I'm not a german citizen. I'm not anti governmental but for "government-light" if that makes any sense...
People will call me what ever they want though, some anarchist, some liberal, some do-gooder, some left and some even scum
I answered honestly and I never voted but just because I'm not a german citizen. I'm not anti governmental but for "government-light" if that makes any sense...
Well, perhaps you don't know exactly what you stand for, from your result it's pretty conclusive that you landed where most Anarcho-Capitalists land.
You say you're for light government, so, let's break things down as to what exactly do you mean, what "powers" do you grant to the government and what "powers" you find to be oppressive and immoral?
What I expect from the government: Working infrastructure (water electricity), Schools & universities, Libraries etc., Support for Art, Social security, Health Care. Protecting essential local industries from corporate raiders.
What I expect from the people: The more you take care of each other, the less intrusive the government needs to be (for example proper education for the kids).
What I expect from the government: Working infrastructure (water electricity), Schools & universities, Libraries etc., Support for Art, Social security, Health Care. Protecting essential local industries from corporate raiders.
What I expect from the people: The more you take care of each other, the less intrusive the government needs to be (for example proper education for the kids).
You see, but the government fails in properly provide those topics!
You see social security on the verge of bankrupcy, Education is corrupt and uniform when it's supposed to be personalized and as for infrastructure, do you really think you can't mantain it without the government.
You are a pure Anarchist, you only mistakenly believe that some aspects of society can only be delivered from the government, when in fact, if they were separated from the government they would work so much better.
Because the government wants to regulate and normalize everything, what you see is when for example, the school system has a flaw, it will have a flaw everywhere, because of the uniformization of society.
As opposed to the privatization of everything, if schools didn't need to abide to governmental format, they would have much more liberty to improvise, to teach according to specific groups/persons needs, instead of this ridiculous uniformization!
Everything that you mentioned can be organized without the government, and it will work better and more efficiently without government control, regulation, taxation and bureaucracy!
Hmm seems this test turns us all into leftists and libertarians
That's because most people don't really know where they stand politically.
Most of the tests made by people on this thread so far indicate that you tend to an Anarchist standpoint, some more than others, but the curious thing is that most of you didn't even knew about it.
Some time ago, I asked my wife to make this test, prior to it she always supported right wing conservatism, when she made the test, she actually discovered she was a left wing libertarian/anarchist.
It completely changed her political perspective from that point on.
Most people are brought upon family belief, and all she really knew was the defintion of what she stood for "I'm a right wing conservative"
She didn't even knew what where the major political philosphies to grew from there (fascism)
The tests are of course complete bollocks (long one at least), because the quastions are worded in a manner which is intended to instill liberal results, or at least push people to antagonize and ultimately select a different answer because of the question's extremity. Same questions can be nuanced such that everyone appears to be a republican.
Everyone of my right-wing friends that has taken the quiz has fallen in the same or close spot as Ghandi, which is complete nonsense. You have to really outdo yourself to fall anywhere outside of the green zone.
It would take someone very naive to take these results as anything serious.
The tests are of course complete bollocks (long one at least), because the quastions are worded in a manner which is intended to instill liberal results, or at least push people to antagonize and ultimately select a different answer because of the question's extremity. Same questions can be nuanced such that everyone appears to be a republican.
Everyone of my right-wing friends that has taken the quiz has fallen in the same or close spot as Ghandi, which is complete nonsense. You have to really outdo yourself to fall anywhere outside of the green zone.
It would take someone very naive to take these results as anything serious.
Have you considered that your right winged friends, aren't actually as right wing as they thought they are?
One thing is to pick a definition to classify your political views, other is to see what you really stand for when your break down what exactly means to be right winged or left winged, authoritarian or libertarian.
Anyway, this test, the long test, is the most used political test online, and if you check other forums where results are posted, there's actually many right wing authoritarian results!
So I don't fully see the questions as being one sided!
Don't you think that if Hitler was to participate in this test he would land right into fascism?
You see what you want to see. The test fits your world view and you have decided it's fair.
When I say "my right-wing friends", this is my assessment from knowing them for years. So if you believe a test with agenda can assess better if they are right wing or not, then I lol'd.
You see what you want to see. The test fits your world view and you have decided it's fair.
When I say "my right-wing friends", this is my assessment from knowing them for years. So if you believe a test with agenda can assess better if they are right wing or not, then I lol'd.
The test is merely a tool, and it can be a better way to know where you stand than merely claim it!
I know people who state that they are right or left and they don't even know what exactly they stand for when you break their worldview into definition.
Most people merely follow the crowd, this is why you usually don't see a rough Communist, you see usually a family of Communists, a family of Fascists, Democrats and so forth, because they follow the families ideals without even understanding them.
The thing is that when you seriously debate with people, most of them eventually realize that government is coercive and oppressive in it's core.
And when people perceive the inherent immorality of government power they begin to turn on it.
When you have unwanted oppressive power ruling over you, even if only a small minority opposes to it, it's still immoral and proof that it fails.
The thing is that when you seriously debate with people, most of them eventually realize that government is coercive and oppressive in it's core.
And when people perceive the inherent immorality of government power they begin to turn on it.
When you have unwanted oppressive power ruling over you, even if only a small minority opposes to it, it's still immoral and proof that it fails.
Sure, whatever you say boss.
If anything, the most successful form of government has always been monarchy (and I don't mean the pathetic Queen of England that Sabin is so proud of ). From the tribes of Afrika to medieval times, man has always needed someone to make decisions for him. It's still true now, but people like the illusion of selecting a ruler, rather than monarch succession. Anarchy is an ideal that naive people like to hold on to, but cannot be ever achieved because despite how intellectual man is, he is a tribalistic animal nonetheless, and needs different hierarchies of ruling. You mentioned "morally accepted law and order", again, very naively, but who would enforce these laws and orders? And what should happen when different cultures with different "morally accepted law and order" than yours clash? Or would you have what is "morally accepted law and order" for you be set as a global "morally accepted law and order" as if man is a preprogrammed machine? "I am the state, and the state is me" much? Who is the fascist now? Mussolini said "Every anarchist is a baffled dictator." Oh, how right he was indeed.
To top it with some hypocrisy, you speak of libertarianism, yet call all religious people "scum" and would have them killed because their beliefs don't coincide with yours. Perhaps you should check the definition of "libertarianism" in the dictionary.
sometimes even i feel like an anarchist. i feel disgusted and betrayed by modern laws and modern ways of detenting the power by the ones who govern us.
they feel like Gods, they send the "everyone is equal before the law" to the cannister and many ppl are dumbass that like that way.
they charge us with depraved taxes and do nothing for the less favored ones. instead, they feed their own greed by celebrating MM contracts with their friends.
i dislike this very much, i dislike the policys and i dislike the rules. i have desobey many of them in the last 2 years and i feel happy with it.
does that convert me in an anarchist or sort of?
anarchist are not scum. anarchist that dress like womens and live under the bridge and fuck themselves and others are scum.
Perhaps you should take a political quiz to know where you stand!
An Anarchist is by definition someone who acknowledges that Government is fundamentally immoral and we need to organize society without centralized power!
From what you say, you seem to support several Anarchic or Libertarian values.
If anything, the most successful form of government has always been monarchy (and I don't mean the pathetic Queen of England that Sabin is so proud of ).
Hey, I'm a Monarchist! Always have been.. it's not my fault our monarchy has been coopted by a bullshit government who has done nothing but trash this country for the last 30 years. We've had one PM bury us in a recession, another bring about the welfare state we have now, then another drag us into a fucking war we had no business, need or right being in -- and now we have David Cameron. Let's see what shit he can cover England in this time.
Our Monarchy used to rule 3/4 of the WORLD, my friend. Of course I'm going to be proud of that. I'm just not proud of the shell it has become these days. Doesn't mean I will stop supporting our Queen, and eventually our King
Yes indeed and you can bet your arse I'll be flying back to England for the coronation of King Charles (or, if Charles chooses to secede due to his age when Elizabeth abdicates, King William) ^_^ You may not agree with it my friend, but it's my choice and my belief that a monarchy is a great thing.
Yes indeed and you can bet your arse I'll be flying back to England for the coronation of King Charles (or, if Charles chooses to secede due to his age when Elizabeth abdicates, King William) ^_^ You may not agree with it my friend, but it's my choice and my belief that a monarchy is a great thing.
First, you have never seen me criticize monarchy, because I haven't done it here.
I have only criticized your pathetic monarchy.
The thing is that when you seriously debate with people, most of them eventually realize that government is coercive and oppressive in it's core.
And when people perceive the inherent immorality of government power they begin to turn on it.
When you have unwanted oppressive power ruling over you, even if only a small minority opposes to it, it's still immoral and proof that it fails.
Sure, whatever you say boss.
If anything, the most successful form of government has always been monarchy (and I don't mean the pathetic Queen of England that Sabin is so proud of ). From the tribes of Afrika to medieval times, man has always needed someone to make decisions for him. It's still true now, but people like the illusion of selecting a ruler, rather than monarch succession. Anarchy is an ideal that naive people like to hold on to, but cannot be ever achieved because despite how intellectual man is, he is a tribalistic animal nonetheless, and needs different hierarchies of ruling. You mentioned "morally accepted law and order", again, very naively, but who would enforce these laws and orders? And what should happen when different cultures with different "morally accepted law and order" than yours clash? Or would you have what is "morally accepted law and order" for you be set as a global "morally accepted law and order" as if man is a preprogrammed machine? "I am the state, and the state is me" much? Who is the fascist now? Mussolini said "Every anarchist is a baffled dictator." Oh, how right he was indeed.
To top it with some hypocrisy, you speak of libertarianism, yet call all religious people "scum" and would have them killed because their beliefs don't coincide with yours. Perhaps you should check the definition of "libertarianism" in the dictionary.
I remember this argument from before!
You have to realize that only because something is popular, doesn't automatically converts it into being good, you can see this from Art down to Religion, and obviously politics!
What you fail to see is that Anarchy works much like true Democracy works, merely without being by nature a oppressive system, there's always clash of cultures, what does oppression has anything to do with it? You seem to believe that when people have different ideals they will automatically go into violent confrontation without any form of reasonable attempt at agreement beforehand!
The example that you have, yes, I call religious people scum, I'm sure that on this aspect you stand not very far from me, and still, I do not advocate any violence and force towards them!
Most probably due to their failed dogma it is they that advocate violence against us, I say that they are scum, not because they are sub human, merely because the whole system that they worship is a system of oppression that force feeds young children with flat out lies about reality and they grow to be ignorant man and women that out of pure fear reject any information that contradicts their dark fairy tale!
The same is true with Government, it is merely a system of force and oppression, your argument is, "who would enforce law and order then?", and I ask you, why is there this need to "enforce" anything, people do what they are so well pleased to do as long as their freedom doesn't clash with other freedom!
The only problem with this is criminality, right?
But, what is criminality?
Everything that is against the law, but the notion of law is flawed to begin with, it is one thing to have a law that states that some behaviors are inappropriate, another entirely different thing is to use force trying to prevent them!
The only aspect of criminality that should be punishable by law, is violence towards other humans, such as murder, theft, rape.
The direct result of coercive criminalization of something, drugs, for example is a exponential growth of violent response from the drug market into the rest of society, and I know you know this is true!
If drugs were not punishable by law, there were never had been a single person to be killed in it's name! (through the use of violence, I mean), it is obvious that drugs are harmful and will eventually kill you, but this is your choice, it is different to die from doing drugs, than to be killed by the law because you support them!
The government relies on the fact of a premeditated use of violence towards anyone who breaks it's laws.
Anarchy relies on the fact that violence is only used to respond to existing violence, violence is herewith a self defense mechanism as opposed to what you see in the government!
You must also be aware that you cannot really prevent violent crime, in your beloved Democracy there's still murder and rape, so it just doesn't prevent anything!
What it does is to create hierarchical classes within society that will struggle to survive because of our over regulation and criminalization of everything.
As when before, people without goals, could merely live of the land, now they can't because all the land belongs to the government and since they cannot settle on virgin land, they are driven to theft and eventually murder!
Crimes of passion are always only a extremely small fraction of crimes of class! You certainly know this!
We are violent by nature, so creating a massively powerful and oppressive institution such as the government will only create more violence, just look around at the world and you cannot ignore this fact!
You might be unaware of how specific aspects of society would work on a Anarchist system, and if you want I can discuss this with you.
Last edited by Ronhrin on Fri, 17th Sep 2010 16:30; edited 2 times in total
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Mussolini said "Every anarchist is a baffled dictator." Oh, how right he was indeed.
