Search the Community

Ain't gonna happen. It's so hip and cool to make twatter posts laughing about LARPers and beauty and the beast reenactors, but the fact remains that cops aren't harassing and beating the **** out of them, while the statist parasites in the capitol buildings they walk into are at least forced to listen to them protest. The rest of us? Heh. I'll bet they are real worried about these angry posts popping up in places like forums.obsidian.net. But hey, at least we didn't die from corona. And that's the only metric that matters, right?

I can read my friend, I'm claiming that you can't call someone a statist if you believe in the necessity of a state. This is ribbing on GD (and right-libertarianism in general), who has previously used statist as a negative. https://forums.obsidian.net/search/?q=statist Anyways, "penultimate utopia which is probably indistinguishable from any number of paradise afterlives" is meaningless, the same can be (and usually is) said to dismiss anything that seeks to change the status quo in a meaningful way.

Then you don't have any business calling anyone else a statist. How does this not equally apply to capitalist society? Not only does the state enforce property at the barrel of a gun, but for the vast majority of people housing, food, and labor are not exclusively theirs and can be taken at will. By your logic living imperiled is natural and liberty is a pipe dream.

But we do. Anyone running for office at even the local workers' council level is a statist at heart and not really interested in "changing the relationship between the government and the people" in a fundamental way. Anyone running for office while also censuring the state's monopoly on violence is just a statist who thinks his **** don't stink. Minarchism is your jam. Okay. Even the smallest state requires that people are deprived of the right (if not the ability) to exercise their discretion with regards to the use of force in general and especially against it because ultimately any law is useless if there is no way to physically ensure compliance. That and your other bane, the prerogative to raise taxes, are the indispensable foundations of any state—even those which aren't actual states on paper, such as territories ruled by warlords. Sorry my dude, it's either full-on egoist anarchism or statism.

Well right now there is only one. Alito. When he makes a pick then I'll comment. The conservative and liberal labels don't really apply to judges they way they do politicians. A justice should look at an issue and ask "Ii this legal?" And that is it. Far too often people want their justices to ask "Is this moral?" One is subjective. The other isn't. But a lot of people think subjective standards are OK as long as they like the standard. I don't. Sotomayor has become a consistent champion of the 4th Amendment. In the American definition of the word liberal (meaning deferring to the State over the citizen) that is an illiberal position. Alito in the same cases tends to favor the state position on the 4th Amendment. In the American political definition of Conservative that is an un-conservative position. They all tend to speckle the spray chart on different issues. Alito, Kagan, and Breyer are the most consistent in one orthodoxy or the other. Heck just last week in Pereira v. Sessions they went 8-1 against a government position on immigration. Most notably refusing to apply the "Chevron Deference" (short definition is when the law, in application of a regulatory agency, is ambiguous the court defers to the agency's interpretation of that law). Now, I don't know what was in the minds of the 8 who decided against the government but deferring to the power of regulatory agencies is a decidedly statist and liberal position but all four "liberals" went to other way and the one "conservative" Alito dissented. The point being, the political labels just don't apply real well to judges. You really have to look at their background and history ans even then you don't know.

You're not touching my recreational nukes statist.

"​The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Trump is so adamant to releasing it reinforces that it MUST not be released." ?

The fact that a liberty-hating statist like Pelosi is so opposed to the release reinforces that it MUST be released.

Dear Val, at least state sponsored classrooms have me a good enough education to understand the levels of bull**** BlackPigeonSpeaks emits. Yours, An indoctrinated statist

Responding to WoD OK, let's wave a magic wand and make Bernie Sanders President for the rest of this term. Will we be more like Sweden in 2020 or more like the US in 2016? The reason why you shouldn't worry too much is even if it happened he would not be all powerful. He would still have only a third of the political power of the federal government. If 218 Bernie Sanders get elected the house and 51 Bernie's in the Senate it still would not be the end because the States have their own political powers. And even if all of that fails the final redoubt of the United States is and has always been insurrection. And if you don't win at the very least you won't have to be subjected to what comes next. I really would not worry about this. Yes it's fun to talk about and I am not at all ashamed to engage in a little harmless hyperbole myself. One of the big things I hear from people is "I like some of the things the Libertarians stand for but..." nobody likes everything. But here is the thing, electing a libertarian President in 2020 and even a few LP candidates to congress will not make the US a libertarian paradise. At best it will more the needle away from the current statist trend a little bit. If the magical Sanders administration happened at best they would move the needle a little. You are not going to go from the USA you know to gulags, secret police, and nationalization of everything you own with a few mass murders for good measure. Right now you can drive from Key West to Pocatello Idaho and not pass through a single state or even county where the Democrats have any power at all. In 2008 it looked like the GOP was on the verge of extinctions. These things are cyclical. Four years from now it will be all different again. The only difference between now and ever in our history is the cycles are coming faster and faster. Maybe people are beginning to realize there is little difference between the two after all. I can always hope.

If they turned on me just with their Glocks, how long do you think I'd last? Also local police is usually pretty reasonable as far as political activity is concerned, it's the feds you've got to worry about. And they got all the fire power they want already. Actually I'm counting on Texas to protect me from the fed deep state and their ANTIFA ilk allies. That probably explains this: https://www.facebook.com/TurnTexasBlueCampaign/ It's because once Texas goes blue it's the end of America as we know it. I think you will find it far less different than you're willing to credit. There will still be a big, expensive, and wasteful government that intrudes on our liberty and disregards the constitution. The only difference will be which liberties they intrude on more than others. So once you realize Democrats and Republicans are two sour apples hanging on the same statist tree you see it really doesn't matter which one you are forced to eat.

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism. Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term. OK, but you have to look at the context of what we were discussing, i.e. collective ownership in the socialist sense. Is a collective farm just a corporate-owned farm? I don't think so. Language is always ambiguous, you have to consider the context.

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism. Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term.

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability I don't think this was what "collective own" means. We have that now, it just means there is more than a single person as owner. Almost all big companies have shareholders, but does that mean they belong "to the people"? No, the people who own shares dont technically own the company but rather benefit from profit in the form of dividends Wow, mister finance guy, that's Hurlshot level of ignorance. sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis. OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people. For example share ownership. Yes, this and agreements like trusts, partnerships and hedge fund investment or just normal investments that buy assets for the the financial return So there are numerous ways to share ownership and the dividends and profitability I don't think this was what "collective own" means. We have that now, it just means there is more than a single person as owner. Almost all big companies have shareholders, but does that mean they belong "to the people"? No, the people who own shares dont technically own the company but rather benefit from profit in the form of dividends Wow, mister finance guy, that's Hurlshot level of ignorance. Cool, we don't have to follow laws any more, let's go loot an 84 Lumber store.

Blame it on the internet, now you can have people blame nazi = right wing on google and others will actually believe it because it fits their preconceived notions. Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic. Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis.

It's a good idea actually. We'll cut out gubbermint jobs and use the newly unemployed gubbermint workers to do the same thing but much cheaper, and hire out newly unemployed people to work for private firms to replace workers who may be asking for a raise, thus creating a steady supply of low-wage labor to circumvent the tyranny of minimum wage and worker's rights. If you disagree with me you're an evil statist who hates freedom.

Where did you get that idea? Fascism doesn't advocate for the breakdown of the traditional family as the indivisible unit of society -- more like the opposite. Mussolini actually encouraged strong traditional family values (women chiefly as procreators and housekeepers, no contraception) to appeal to conservatives and, most importantly, the Catholic Church. Same thing with Franco's regime in Spain, even though he was more an ultraconservative autocrat than an actual card carrying fascist. It's hard to understand the influence that the Catholic Church still has on the cultural and social fabric of Mediterranean countries even today, not to mention in the 1920's. The incomplete and late mobilization of women by Germany is one of the reasons that contributed to their war production never being able to keep up with the Soviet Union's, too. Socialism doesn't specifically advocate for the phasing out of traditional families either, unless by traditional you specifically mean keeping women out of the workforce. Beyond the idea that capitalism doesn't serve the majority of the community and that the fruit of labor should benefit everyone, the different variants of "socialism" have little in common with one another. Which is why you have the so-called "socialist countries" which are for all intents and purposes military dictatorships with a centrally planned economy on one end of the spectrum, and on the other some weaksauce Social Democracy movements whose apparent goal is to beat around the bush perpetually and make sure not to step on anyone's toes while they're at it, with everything ranging from post-recession Iceland to 1970's Libyan Jamahiriya in between. The ultimate goal of anarcho-communists is the abolition of the state and money, go figure. Which one is truly "socialist"? Of course, if you live in a single-party police state, differences are going to seem academic, but that's more a thing with totalitarian regimes than whatever philosophies they use to justify themselves. So, socialism is statist, except when it's not. Fascism is revolutionary except when it's not, and neither really seeks to abolish families and replace them with subservience to the state, because its not either/or.

Having sex with young girls is an essential liberty only statist scum would deny.

I choked on my drink of water reading that. That was ****ing hilarious. Thank you! "Foreign Policy" is a tax-feeding, statist, Neoconservative rag. They never met a region they didn't want to bathe in war--hence, their affection for Killery. Their comments are damning in exactly the opposite manner they intend.

The problem with anarcho-whatever suffix you wanna put here, is of course that violence is a very effective coercion tool. So as history has shown you very quickly degenerate into have and used-to-haves. And then it starts all over again. Excuse me statist scum, but the NAP will prevent all of that.

Hate this attitude and pattern of thinking. To me, people have absolutely nothing to lose since both outcomes are terrible, so wtf might as well try for a third party candidate, because if Johnson or Stein were to pull in an abnormal amount of votes, better believe next election the USA might have a new party. Winning this one? Probably not, but a lasting impression for the future? Totally possible amidst all the discontent with Democrat and republican. I understand your sentiment but the first past the post vote distortion and the immense costs of running in so many simultaneous and parallel elections make it impossible for a third party to establish itself. Literally impossible. The fringe parties and candidates that exist are no more than a safety valve for the system, so that it can supports its claim to "democracy". Even within the UK, which has a much more ideological variety than the US ever had (the US has never even had a genuine Left/Right split, what is called the Left/Right in the US would in Europe be basically two center lib/capitalist parties with a slant toward either side), the best a third party can do on occasion is play kingmaker. The fact is, most political ideas fought their way into parliament (the key of these being socialism and other mass politics movements) from the street, usually through years of blood and sacrifices. It was never a case of simply being voted in and "slipping in unannounced." In the US they tried and were shot down. 80's and latter FBI (and mafia etc.) clampdowns against Unions accounted for the rest. The flip side, the various right "anti-statist/anti fed" movements unique to the US are a bunch of retards living in their own version of a 19th century fantasy capitalism, with no clue how a modern government actually works. Abolishing taxes, minimal state etc. in 2016, indeed. Lol! They have even less chance of success. The elites that hold power in the US have a much tighter hold on society than any government in Europe can ever dream of, even the ones described as practically "authoritarian".

Hollande is the one who's dangerous, and he's teaching us? https://pjmedia.com/blog/statist-france-collapsing-it-simply-no-longer-works/

Yeah, I don't get it. He's butthurt about having a referendum to begin with, and the perspective that elected officials will have to... do work? Gotta love these (super-)statist leftards. Democracy is only cool when it goes your way, hmm?

More like "My ancestors didn't travel 4000 miles to see a nation of promise, opportunity, and liberty overrun by a horde of non-white, non-Christian, statist-minded Third World barbarians hell bent on turning the USA into the same general sort of cesspool from whence the Third Worlders came." And, no, this isn't at all "funny", but neither was your disingenuous post.