• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who Do You Want in Power?

AnarchyintheUS

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Lowell, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Assuming our system of government is still in place, but the Democrats and Republicans lose power, which party do you want to be in power?
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's no party currently in American politics that I support without grave reservations about their policies and their ability to lead.

Given the amount of social upheaval that the loss of the Republicans and Democrats would cause, though... I think the best answer would be my political party, composed of myself and my loyal followers.
 

AnarchyintheUS

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Lowell, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Korimyr the Rat said:
There's no party currently in American politics that I support without grave reservations about their policies and their ability to lead.

Given the amount of social upheaval that the loss of the Republicans and Democrats would cause, though... I think the best answer would be my political party, composed of myself and my loyal followers.

Well I also agree with you that there is no party in th United States that supports my belief, mainly because there cannot be a party for Anarchists because it is counterproductive. But if we assume that system we have remains in place I would side with either the Workers' World Party, or the Socialist Workers' Party.
 

Asi

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Kalispell, Montana (you know, Montana? Yes we're s
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
this may sound insane, but I would like to see the citizens in power...of course that would require that someone in this country get off their ***, so in place of that, I say we find a new Napoleon and let him run things for a while
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AnarchyintheUS said:
Assuming our system of government is still in place, but the Democrats and Republicans lose power, which party do you want to be in power?

Either myself as the entire government, or SocialistAction.

Well I also agree with you that there is no party in th United States that supports my belief
\
Agreed, for instance SocialistAction, is a pro-Castro party, I have generally negative views on Castro, though probably not as much as the "average" person. Probably the parties I am against of having control are the right-wing nut paties, Progressive-Labour Party(extremely Stalinist), and the Revolutionary Communist Party(extremely Maoist).
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't want anyone "in power". "Power" is the problem. Long live libertarianism!
 
T

The Real McCoy

AnarchyintheUS said:
Well I also agree with you that there is no party in th United States that supports my belief, mainly because there cannot be a party for Anarchists because it is counterproductive. But if we assume that system we have remains in place I would side with either the Workers' World Party, or the Socialist Workers' Party.

How can you possibly consider yourself an anarchist while advocating socialism? The two ideologies are diametrically opposed. A lack of government would mean lack of government intervention in the economy and thus, a free market (capitalism.)
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
How can you possibly consider yourself an anarchist while advocating socialism? The two ideologies are diametrically opposed. A lack of government would mean lack of government intervention in the economy and thus, a free market (capitalism.)

McCoy, your lack of knowledge of such systems is extreme, yet understandeable. First off, a majority of anarchists are anti-capitalist and sympethetic to communal systems. Mainly because the largest attraction to anarchism is to destroy "oppression" in all forms, and anarchists view the state as the ultimate source of oppression. Because also too, socialism is not some state-owned economy, as it has often been taught, and falsely too. Also your notion, again, that anarchism=capitalism is poor, tell me where you have seen any anarcho-capitalist societies around or in the past. I can't find any. Then tell me where stateless societies have existed in the past. They worked under communal systems. Also anarchism is the advocation of the immediate abolition of the state. Something I find to be personally utopian.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Comrade Brian said:
McCoy, your lack of knowledge of such systems is extreme, yet understandeable.

Lack of knowledge? It's realistic, as opposed to an idealistic fantasy that has thus far failed to manifest in any modern nation and I see no reason to believe it will ever succeed.


Comrade Brian said:
First off, a majority of anarchists are anti-capitalist and sympethetic to communal systems.

Yea, I'm friends with a few. They eat a lot of mushrooms and acid.



Comrade Brian said:
Mainly because the largest attraction to anarchism is to destroy "oppression" in all forms, and anarchists view the state as the ultimate source of oppression.

Destory oppression? That would require the extermination of the human race.


Comrade Brian said:
Because also too, socialism is not some state-owned economy, as it has often been taught, and falsely too. Also your notion, again, that anarchism=capitalism is poor, tell me where you have seen any anarcho-capitalist societies around or in the past.

Where have you seen any anarcho-syndacalist societies?



Comrade Brian said:
I can't find any. Then tell me where stateless societies have existed in the past. They worked under communal systems.

No substantial ones have existed in modern history.


Comrade Brian said:
Also anarchism is the advocation of the immediate abolition of the state. Something I find to be personally utopian.

Okay, say the state is abolished. Supply and demand would still exist. Commerce would still exist. The market would be free. Labor would be naturally divided to supply products/services efficiently. Am I getting something wrong here?
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian said:
tell me where you have seen any anarcho-capitalist societies around or in the past. I can't find any.

Look here, medieval Iceland was CLEARLY anarcho-capitalist. Now, I am a moderate libertarian and would never advocate such a system, (though I would love to see it tried) but it has clearly happened before and clearly worked. My main beef is that I worry about vigilante justice.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lack of knowledge? It's realistic, as opposed to an idealistic fantasy that has thus far failed to manifest in any modern nation and I see no reason to believe it will ever succeed.
That's because anarchism is an idealistic, utopian fantasy.

Yea, I'm friends with a few. They eat a lot of mushrooms and acid.
:confused:
Destory oppression? That would require the extermination of the human race.
I do and do not agree with you. Maybe I should have stated as much as possible, without extermination.
Where have you seen any anarcho-syndacalist societies?
Nowhere, but then again, an anarcho-capitalist would be having much more success, comparing that anarcho-capitalists, don't oppose capitalism, thay are just as utopian as anarch-syndicalists.
No substantial ones have existed in modern history.

Because anarchism is a utopian ideology.
Okay, say the state is abolished. Supply and demand would still exist. Commerce would still exist. The market would be free. Labor would be naturally divided to supply products/services efficiently. Am I getting something wrong here?
The "state" will never be "abolished", the only way to make a stateless society is for the state to "whither away", after the abolishment of classes.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian said:
The "state" will never be "abolished", the only way to make a stateless society is for the state to "whither away", after the abolishment of classes.

As if we're still living in medieval times...
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since when has a medieval society been anarcho-capitalist? Or even capitalist for that matter?
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. They cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim that these things, which are actually examples of competing governments, are what life without government will produce.

Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for "just one example of where it has worked."

Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.

http://www.mises.org/story/1121


hows that for yeah?
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Green president, republican congress, and liberal (democrat) judiciary.

Then they can work it out or destroy us all :D

I think that it would force compromise and solidify a three party based system where two parties would ally only on certain issues, forcing communication between parties and therefore more actual debate/communication in politics.
 
T

The Real McCoy

-Demosthenes- said:
Green president, republican congress, and liberal (democrat) judiciary.

Then they can work it out or destroy us all :D

I think that it would force compromise and solidify a three party based system where two parties would ally only on certain issues, forcing communication between parties and therefore more actual debate/communication in politics.

How about a Libertarian president, a libertarian congress and a libertarian judiciary? Oh, how sweet it would be... America as the founding fathers intended it.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Liberatarians in in power, cool. All the power, then partisan politics only changes, it does not go away.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
Liberatarians in in power, cool. All the power, then partisan politics only changes, it does not go away.


actually it becomes non existant, because Libertarians have perfect solutions.



Unless hardcore libertarians break away from more moderate libertarians.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Provided that they are perfect and will always be perfect.

Good luck.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
Provided that they are perfect and will always be perfect.

Good luck.



Thanks.


and the point being is, in all reality, a 3rd party just won't come to power in current affairs.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-Demosthenes- said:
Provided that they are perfect and will always be perfect.

Good luck.

Nonsense. Libertarianism is the only system that doesn't require good leaders in power, much less perfect ones, because they have no power except for very circumscribed powers.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If once in power they choose the keep their old ways, sure.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bah Mises.

He made a large error, what was meant stateless, he appeared to have made an error, what he seemed to mean by "state" was the present capitalist state. A feudal state is largely different. But also the Nordic feudal socieies still worked largely by class. Also Mises I believe claimed the public property was nonexistant. No society could ever fucntion without some public property, not even capitalist.
 
Top Bottom