My view on political ideologies

[Pa3s]

Hi,
here I wanted to describe how I think about a few political ideas, this list doesn't make any claims of being complete. If you're interested, feel free to discuss or correct my description if I understood something wrong, but remember that this is my subjective opinion. You can also tell us your personal opinion.

Okay, let's start:

Libertarianism
I learned about this ideology when I read about parties of the USA. It's actually not a bad idea: the people have total freedom, "Everyone leaves everyone alone". That means there won't be a big state which squeezes the money out of me or forces me to do what it wants. No, I can do what I want because I have a lot of personal rights. And everyone else, too. Could there be a better foundation for a free nation? In my opinion: yes, definitely. Well, it all sounds better than it actually is, because this will probably increase the suffering of the most people in a country. The state has not much power, as I said. Will it be powerful enough to enforce the law? Or will the completely free, large companies control the state and take over the markets? Without any economical regulation there will be more cartels than you can think of. Or at least a few, very powerful ones. The people will not longer be free, but slaves of the economy. Probably they will be reduced to their potentional of consume since this is the main thing of importance for the companies. But it could also lead to a total chaotic situation in which everyone stands alone, similar to Anarchy. It was designed fot total freedom, but will most likely lead to the opposite.

Communism and Socialism
I have to say that there are different types of Communism. There is the "utopian" communism, the "real" Communism (meaning the one which was actually practised, the "utopian" form was never used) and more. The basics of the first one are easily explaned: Everyone is equal and free. Everyone can use everything which is produced. There are no classes and no personal property. Factories and machines are also not owned by a single person or a firm, but by everyone, ect. It’s a bit like “reversed” evolution – not the strongest and smartest survive in a struggle of everyone vs. everyone, but all people are working together to unleash the real potential of mankind. Even if you’re not the best, you can still survive and lead a good life. Sounds not too bad, but this has never happened. The "real" form of Communism/Socialism places the workers and soldiers above everyone else (equality) to rule the country. But this is not the only advantage if you're a worker: they are also better off socially and financial. Of course, this almost shuts down any progress because no one will be there to research and develop new technology. Many of the communist states were governed by a single party which ruled dictatorial (freedom). The oppression and mind-controlling propagandy can be so extreme that the difference between Communism and Fascism fade away. The GDR and the Soviet Union are examples of this kind.

Capitalism
I think of today's Capitalism as a moderate form of Libertarianism (both limited in personal and economical rights). Germany is a capitalist country, but due to our history there are also social additions to it, that's why people speak of it as "welfare state". The social security system is helping everyone who get's into financial trouble, both if it was their own fault or not. Capitalism is more pure in the US, I also see the reason in the tradition of the nation. Based on the quarrels about the health care you can see where the problems are. Fortunately, the negative peak of Capitalism, the first industrial revolution, is over. If you take a look at the living conditions of the workers at this time it's no wonder that the working class rised and fought against their employers. They were not more than slaves. But this changed today, so the rebellion of the working class is obsolete. My personal problem is the importance of economical interests in the capitalist societies of today. Even if no one will admit it, the government obeys the needs of the economy. I think the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.

Social liberalism
This is my favourite of all ideologies I took a closer look on. It combines social ideals with the freedom of Liberalism. Not like Neo-liberalism, which focuses on the economical freedom rather than personal rights, Social liberalism supports the latter, regulates the economy and limits the power of the large companies. Workers, soldiers and academics all have the same rights. The state is powerful enough to enforce the law and to grant a fair and genuine free market, but won't cut the rights of the individual. A social system helps people who are unemployed, homeless or otherwise not able to sustain themselves. Not everyone will earn the same amount of money, but this won't be necessary at all. This political idea comes from the middle class. It's no revolution by the poorest and no oppression by the few richest people. Of course, a working democratic system would be the foundation of such a system. And last but not least, actually interested people who can handle the responsibility and use the rights the state has given them. Unused rights have the tendency to disappear and be replaced by rules.

[discojoe]

Socialism is not an ideology. It's just a heap of bullshit.

[Pa3s]

Socialism is not an ideology. It's just a heap of bullshit.

That's a matter of the personal point of view.

[Capitalist Pig]

Autarchy is the best one.

[Pa3s]

Autarchy is the best one.

I guess this would fall under Libertarianism, don't you think so?

[Capitalist Pig]

I guess this would fall under Libertarianism, don't you think so?

Libertarianism is far too broad anymore to be considered a cohesive philosophy. It's become more of an umbrella term, as opposed to one that refers to the belief in the principals of property rights and individual sovereignty.

I hate that word.

[Pa3s]

This is the first time I come across the term "Autarchy" at all. What would you say are the most important differences between Autarchy and Anarchy? Why do you think it's the best system?

[Absurd]

Planning a little takeover, aren't we ?

[Pa3s]

Planning a little takeover, aren't we ?

It's better to be ready when the time comes... :wink:

[discojoe]

That's a matter of the personal point of view.

Only technically.

[Beautiful sky]

interesting

I'm glad you posted this. It's a lot of saying from someone who normally doesn't say much...lol.

[Pa3s]

It's a lot of saying from someone who normally doesn't say much...lol.

I know
It took two days to write the first post...

[Absurd]

It's better to be ready when the time comes... :wink:

Yep. We might meet some day.

By the way, the NPD is still "infested" with Police ?

[Beautiful sky]

I know
It took two days to write the first post...

Good for you.
Now, please don't delete it, because I love it.
I'll be really unhappy if you do (Is the guilt working???)

[Pa3s]

By the way, the NPD is still "infested" with Police ?

If you want to ask if they are still a barely legal party: yes they are. They are constantly observed by the state.

Is the guild working???

What do you mean by that?

[Absurd]

If you want to ask if they are still a barely legal party: yes they are. They are constantly observed by the state.

Every one deemed extremist was infiltrated, so no, I ain't asking about it being a legal party

[Pa3s]

Every one deemed extremist was infiltrated, so no, I ain't asking about it being a legal party

Oh, you mean if undercover policemen get into the party to observe them, right? Yes, I think so.

[Absurd]

Oh, you mean if undercover policemen get into the party to observe them, right? Yes, I think so.

Yeah, it happened right after the party formed.

[Pa3s]

Yeah, it happened right after the party formed.

Yes, and it will probably go on until they shut down the party. But I see nothing wrong in it. I'm not sure if they are already watching the DKP, too, but if not, this should also be done.

[Absurd]

Yes, and it will probably go on until they shut down the party. But I see nothing wrong in it. I'm not sure if they are already watching the DKP, too, but if not, this should also be done.

Funny part is, "they" have members' addresses, phone numbers, background etc. I mean the ones who were linked to some other organisations, were the first ones to get to know about it

EDIT:

Doubt the government will ban it. Ain't saying it will not, but it's too much work, too much to loose. Training, educating, etc. Don't think money spent on it will go to waste.

[Pa3s]

Funny part is, "they" have members' addresses, phone numbers, background etc.

I know what you mean, but how do you want to handle the people who want to destroy the democratic foundation of the country? Personally, I don't tolerate any national socialistic party.

[Absurd]

I know what you mean, but how do you want to handle the people who want to destroy the democratic foundation of the country? Personally, I don't tolerate any national socialistic party.

Neither. But my political leaning doesn't have anything to do with it. It is democratic by what it calls itself - they have an inner democratic vote, don't they ?

Destroying ? Don't think so. Biggest popularity is in the East of Germany, which is, again, quite funny seeing how it is re-populated by immigrants. State policy.

[Capitalist Pig]

This is the first time I come across the term "Autarchy" at all. What would you say are the most important differences between Autarchy and Anarchy? Why do you think it's the best system?

Traditional anarchism does not respect property rights. Anarchists are correct in identifying the State as oppressive and tyrannical, and a major source of war and poverty; yet the anarchists defeat themselves by shunning the market and calling for arbitrary restrictions on things like ownership and trade, the cornerstones of peaceful and prosperous civilizations.

Anarchy is also a misnomer, I do not believe in a society that is without rule, I believe in a society of self-rule, or self-government.

Robert LeFevre elaborated on the differences in his 1965 essay Autarchy vs. Anarchy (available online).

[Pa3s]

Thanks for the link, I read much of this essay, but I still have some unanswered questions. This text was rather philosophically and doesn't say much about the practical use of Autarchism. How does the total self-rule work? Will there be nations or just very small regions to make self-rule easier? How do the people decide on jurisdiction or the bigger issues, things which affect all?

I just need a kind of profile to evaluate the ideology. I do know the basic idea from what you said, but some more detailed information would be good.

[Capitalist Pig]

How does the total self-rule work?

People are already doing it everyday in one capacity or another, whenever they make choices for themselves and act upon them. The problem is it's heavily controlled by what the government will or will not permit you to do. Nearly every endeavor you can imagine undertaking is bound to have its legal do's and don't's, as mandated by civil and criminal laws.

This kind of misdirection by regulation is what is so harmful to the market process, as it forces people to make choices that might not be what they would have decided otherwise. Regulation limits options, and by that I mean curtailing freedom and invading your property rights.

Bear in mind, I am not speaking, of course, of ethical choices. Ethics and law, albeit related, are not the same. What the state considers legal or illegal may not always be for ethical reasons. For example, taxation is an unethical practice because you do not choose to pay into the state, the state appropriates your property without prior consent, therefore committing extortion. Refusal to pay taxes will result in your incarceration or even death.

You may argue that our usage of the state's services justifies taxation, however if the state is the sole supplier of these certain so-called "public goods" then what other choice do I have but to utilize them? I might have made a different choice, had those choices been permitted to exist in the first place. And what of the services I do not use? Why should I be expected to fund their operation if I do not benefit personally from it? This concept is clearly illustrated in the parable of the broken window.

Will there be nations or just very small regions to make self-rule easier?

Autarchy is similar to anarchy in most respects, except when it comes to the matter of social organization. Autarchists believe in laissez-faire, whereas anarchists do not.

An autarchy is without pre-defined political boundaries. There is no public office, there are no elected or appointed officials, there is no congress, parliament, council, or committee; in short, there is no government, at least not as we understand it. Law and order is maintained through the voluntary contracts between mutually-acting agents within the matrix of social and economic interaction.

C.F. Bastiat called this the "harmonizing" effect of free markets, where conflicts of interest are heavily mitigated and everyones' self-interests serve everyone else. Everyone is afforded the same respect, insofar as their right to life, body, mind, and property are concerned.

The use of force is thereby decentralized, as opposed to concentrated into the hands of a single monopoly (the state), which I believe can only be a good thing as it would prevent the kind of exploitation we see now by big business and big government.

How do the people decide on jurisdiction or the bigger issues, things which affect all?

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide some examples of "bigger issues"?

I just need a kind of profile to evaluate the ideology. I do know the basic idea from what you said, but some more detailed information would be good.

Read The Nature of Man and His Government, which I posted a while ago and recently bumped. Read it in its entirety and at your own pace. There is no rush here, I will still answer your questions to the best of my ability. I sincerely believe you may benefit from its reading and gain a deeper and fundamental understanding of where myself and others like me are coming from.

[Pa3s]

I searched for Information about Autarchy in German, but I found nothing. There is not even a German Wikipedia article, it's like it wouldn't exist. Quite odd, normally the internet knows "everything" before you know it.

You may argue that our usage of the state's services justifies taxation, however if the state is the sole supplier of these certain so-called "public goods"...

Law and order is maintained through the voluntary contracts between mutually-acting agents within the matrix of social and economic interaction.

Does that mean things like law enforcement and social services will be privatised in an Autarchist "country"? Wouldn't that lead to several, competing forces? And if a security company has literally the law in their own hands, why should they abide it anyway? Or who will force them to do so?

C.F. Bastiat called this the "harmonizing" effect of free markets, where conflicts of interest are heavily mitigated and everyones' self-interests serve everyone else. Everyone is afforded the same respect, insofar as their right to life, body, mind, and property are concerned.

What about the poor/homeless people? I think without property and work they'll lose a lot of that respect. And without state, there is no social security system anymore. How can they survive?

The use of force is thereby decentralized, as opposed to concentrated into the hands of a single monopoly (the state), which I believe can only be a good thing as it would prevent the kind of exploitation we see now by big business and big government.

You're right, splitting up the force is basically a good thing, but as I already mentioned above, how can you be so sure that it won't get out of control? What if these companies are working together as a large cartel? They could make new laws easily and start a new dictatorship if they want. Who can prevent this? Probably nobody because everyone is as weak as everyone else, except the companies. I'm referring to the scenario of my description of Libertarianism from above: Economy rules the people and they eventually become slaves.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide some examples of "bigger issues"?

I meant the healthcare system, the democratic decision-making process, the armed forces, adoption of new laws, the police...

Read The Nature of Man and His Government, which I posted a while ago and recently bumped. Read it in its entirety and at your own pace. There is no rush here, I will still answer your questions to the best of my ability. I sincerely believe you may benefit from its reading and gain a deeper and fundamental understanding of where myself and others like me are coming from.

Thank you. I may asked stupid questions, but I first need get a better understanding.

[mu4]

People use words like states, unions, business and corporations in ways in order to differentiate their natures. There are certainly differences between their administration and governance but the similarities are also important.

These are all organizations which are formed which have some effect on their economic and political enviroment. What is a business but a limited fiefdom for it's owners? What is a union but a crafts guild? What is a public corporation but a confederation of it's shareholders.

There are persons who will advocate no organization, but that's largely fantasy, as fantastic as utopian communism. You would have to dissolve all business, corporations and non-governmental entities. Also in the absence of government, non-government organizations will begin to create organizational means to do what the government used to do. In the end you end up with just a more splintered form of what you had before, with all its oppressions and injustices. Organization is neccessary, but how to organize is something that is something complex and requires ingenuity, modernizing organization practices on a governmental level is often traumatic and painful.

Structure, decentralization, scalability, security, efficiency and other factors all weigh in on the organization of such a system.

I like both Social Liberalism and Democratic Socialism, and I think these are competing pragmatic(non-ideological) democratic(representative) systems of government which seek to address all the organizational problems that we have encountered thus far thru non-authoritarian means.

I'm going to note that workers revolution never really happened successfully anywhere in the world. Every socialist/communist revolution that has establish a government has been a peasant one. The 20th century was the global end of feudalism(and it's cousins) for billions of people. The biggest former and current communist government have chosen capitalism or some sort of market mechanism as a means of growth(except where economic sanctions make it impossible.)

One of the big issues of peasant versus worker is the ability to move. Places like China still maintain migration restrictions on it's people but this is freeing up rapidly as people become workers and are able to sell their labor. It takes a lot of systemic adjustment for a civilization to accommodate the free travel of it's citizens, it also take some government intervention in preserving a pool of workers in order to address shortages in labor.

The ending of feudal systems and transition to worker based societies in China wasn't perfect by any mean, but without that change capitalism wouldn't have been possible either, because peasants would still be tied to the land and landlords would can still enact 50%-60% taxes on peasantry.

If you go to China today and look at the country-side and the pre-modern villages. It is largely abandoned or primarily inhabited by old people. My grandmother continued to live in a mud hut for most of her life but eventually moved to a small community of elderly because almost everyone in the village had died or moved with family.

China is undergoing a dramatic industrialization process, but as it modernizes, it's also feeling all the oppressive effect of greed and capitalism's ills. People live in huge worker complexes with thousands and often tens of thousands workers living in tenement style high density confinement, making menial wages and a low income in harsh conditions with little free-time.

Looking at the Foxconn current practices and it's media coverage and worker protests. You can see the same worker unrest that's has occured and been addressed in the developed nations prior to 1949.

Why are you seeing such a event in China, a supposedly "communist" country, for the same reasons why it will always happen in a world where the idea of workers rights and human rights are not ignored. China is more prepared for workers revolution and reform(more likely) today then it was 60 years ago, and that's sort of the way I think it works. People organize for their own interests, as long as they are free to organize for their own interests and some negotiated standards of human rights are respected for all, society can improve as long as we do not overextend our resources.

Many businesses want to prohibit unions or prohibit their workers from organizing. Many unions have corrupt practices and force enrollment. Many private organizations often do not respect the human rights of their members or employees, I have no more trust in private organization then public ones.

I believe as long as people have the right to organize and do not enact rules against other participants in their organization to organize, there is always the opportunity to addressing issues.

Given that governments and business have all in their power tried to create rules against organization of their participants for one reason or another. It's very important that this freedom be protected.

In many sense, many viewpoints and supporters of capitalism and communism have in one way or another tried to limit the right to organize by their opponents. And in that sense they have gone astray in their ideologies for political power.

The dialectic of modern government and governance is how to organize, not whether organization is good or bad or whether capitalism or communism is good or bad. That moral debate is fruitless and in my opinion, without any merit.

[Capitalist Pig]

I searched for Information about Autarchy in German, but I found nothing. There is not even a German Wikipedia article, it's like it wouldn't exist. Quite odd, normally the internet knows "everything" before you know it.

Wikipedia isn't the best source in this case, their articles on the subject are very lacking (although last I looked, I was impressed with their article on praxeology). I'm not even sure that there would be any German language sources, since Robert LeFevre was an American. However, you can find many original works written in German from the founders of the Austrian school of economics such as Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich August von Hayek. The Austrian school had the greatest influence on the economic doctrine of autarchism.

Does that mean things like law enforcement and social services will be privatised in an Autarchist "country"? Wouldn't that lead to several, competing forces? And if a security company has literally the law in their own hands, why should they abide it anyway? Or who will force them to do so?

I make no claim to know, exactly, what form law and order would take in the kind of free society I propose. Protection agencies, possibly as an extension of the insurance industry, are but one theory. I admit that I don't know how many things we may take for granted today would work, but I also realize that I do not have to know. I do know that the government provides nearly all of these services inefficiently and at an exorbitant cost. The Postal Service is a perfect example of this; whereas the price of postage is constantly on the increase and the service is mediocre, delivery companies consistently become cheaper and faster. The market has a consistent trend of improving service and lowering costs, while the government has a consistent trend of exponential growth, increasing costs, and operates without any measure of its success or failure due to a lack of any sort of barometer like a profit-or-loss mechanism.

Call it blind faith if you want, I just think it's common sense.

What about the poor/homeless people? I think without property and work they'll lose a lot of that respect. And without state, there is no social security system anymore. How can they survive?

In many ways, I blame the state for their perpetual state of abject squalor. Social security is bankrupt and an empty promise, most people are rational enough to save for their retirement anyway. Welfare does not encourage the poor to better themselves, it simply gives them a cushion to survive on subsistence.

In Florida, for example, state healthcare makes it easy for people to obtain prescription medications. Sounds like a good thing, right? Well as a result, we have an epidemic of prescription drug abuse which far surpasses the cocaine and heroin trades. I read in the paper recently that more infants were treated last year in Tampa Bay area hospitals for methadone and xanax withdrawal than any previous year and the number of people arrested and being treated for this kind of abuse has also been on a steady rise. The DEA and state law enforcement agencies have made statements to the effect that pills are so cheap and plentiful in Florida, people will travel from out of state just to obtain them and transport them back across state lines.

I've personally known addicts who sell their food stamps for drugs, or cash to buy the drugs. Another friend of mine said that because of the state's guidelines on income brackets eligible for Medicaid, they have an incentive not to make anymore money than what they are currently making because they will lose their health benefits for himself and his two kids.

Speaking of money, if you really want to fight poverty, fight the federal government's monopoly on the mint and fractional reserve banking. Private currencies and a return to 100% reserve banking would go a long way in stabilizing our money's purchasing power and combating inflation. But that debate is neither here nor there.

Realize that I am not opposed to affordable healthcare or charity. I am opposed to how it is funded. If the poor were not taxed to death and government stayed out of our money, then everyone would be that much richer to pay for the services they actually use and require.

You're right, splitting up the force is basically a good thing, but as I already mentioned above, how can you be so sure that it won't get out of control? What if these companies are working together as a large cartel? They could make new laws easily and start a new dictatorship if they want. Who can prevent this? Probably nobody because everyone is as weak as everyone else, except the companies. I'm referring to the scenario of my description of Libertarianism from above: Economy rules the people and they eventually become slaves.

You're assuming that these companies would be able to raise the barriers of entry so high that no one else could hope to compete with them. Cartels rarely survive for long, because all it takes is for one outsider to enter the market, or one participating member to choose to opt-out, and then the whole house of cards comes toppling down.

Moreover, war is an extremely expensive endeavor. With all the senseless destruction of property, the squandering of resources, the human cost, and not to mention negative public opinion, the payoff would hardly be worth the effort. The moment any of these agencies stepped out of line, they would almost certainly lose most of their investors, and in the process suffer from the threat of bankruptcy and liquidation.

The people would not be as totally helpless as you think, either. The companies are not the only ones who can purchase weapons and organize militias. And considering they would be the victims of unprovoked aggression fighting a defensive war, it would be much easier for them to garner compassion and support from outsiders than for the big, bad evil company fighting their war of conquest. I assure you it is much easier and beneficial in the long-run to engage in trade and negotiation than to conduct war.

Of course, I do not expect the free market to be a utopia and rid the world of every evil. Armed conflict may still occur in isolated pockets of the world, as it does, and poverty will probably still exist on some level. My argument is simply a utilitarian one, I say that the free market would mitigate and reduce the number and scale of these evils. I think that it would provide the best possible outcome for the largest number of people. You can give a man all the choices and freedoms in the world, it won't necessarily make him more responsible or rational, but it might just change his luck for the better.

I meant the healthcare system, the democratic decision-making process, the armed forces, adoption of new laws, the police...

Most of these are non-issues, since the only "law" would be your right to yourself and your property. The rest would be determined contracturally.

Thank you. I may asked stupid questions, but I first need get a better understanding.

Not at all, we all must start the road to enlightenment somewhere.