Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[LiberNovusAmericae]

How dare libertarians let people of different opinions carry on living(!)

This ^^

[Free Arabian Nation]

3.libertarianism allows all types of authoritarians to speak and live life

But that, in itself, is Authoritarian.

Are you trying to tell us something? Do you hate yourself and want to die?

[Communal concils]

1.Prositiution should be illegal.

Good luck trying to ban the world's oldest profession and trying to make said ban effective...

---

Anything that encourages non reproductive sex should be banned.

So homosexuality is banned? Why the fuck do you want to do that?

---

Censorship of the depictions of mating should be censored completely.

Censorship should be censored? Lol, what? Censorshipception...

---

Celibacy should be encourage on people regardless of sexual orientation.

Again, why?

---

2.Fascism gained power with speeches.

No it didn't. A tremendous amount of force and intimidation were needed too.

3.libertarianism allows all types of authoritarians to speak and live life.

How dare libertarians let people of different opinions carry on living(!)

1.Prositution does not improve one's health, and most people do it because their poor. To ban it prevents unwanted pregnancies, prevents rape and allows for the preventions of STDs.

2.Homosexuality is just a attraction, it's a feeling . That is all it is. I'm not concerned with homosexuals, but rather Th behaviors that ruin the body. This concern includes anyone that mistreats themselves. People would respond "It's their choice",But the choice of people may not always be good.

3.people make mistakes. I have more than one comment to respond to.

4.Ofcourse it was the speeches. People will listen to anything that sounds good to them. Fascism simply was attractive to people across class lines, it was about making the "inspired" individuals going into a way to fight their enemies. This is the feature of all ideology. Force does not come without the thought of force.

5.Maybe a Racial Supremacist can call for the destruction of your very existence.Since they can freely gather, then they can kill others with out restrictions.Anything that you would consider immoral would flourish in your "Free" society.

[Communal concils]

3.libertarianism allows all types of authoritarians to speak and live life

But that, in itself, is Authoritarian.

Are you trying to tell us something? Do you hate yourself and want to die?

Isn't the job of the anarchist and other Libertarins to "Bash the Fash".What happens if a reactionary government gets the support of the population in a libertarian society,wouldn't that be of their choice.If one was a true Libertarian,they wouldn't be minarchist,anarcho-capitalist or any other useless branch of the ideology.They would simpily be a Individualist anarchist,a ideology that would be actually have no problem killing fascist.In their views,freedom shouln't have no limits, and the egoist anarchist will reject Moralism(which in my opinion,would allow them to be called the only real liberarians).

[Communal concils]

How dare libertarians let people of different opinions carry on living(!)

This ^^

What if the people with different opinions seek their total destruction.

[The New Teutonic Order]

Good luck trying to ban the world's oldest profession and trying to make said ban effective...

---

So homosexuality is banned? Why the fuck do you want to do that?

---

Censorship should be censored? Lol, what? Censorshipception...

---

Again, why?

---

No it didn't. A tremendous amount of force and intimidation were needed too.




How dare libertarians let people of different opinions carry on living(!)

1.Prositution does not improve one's health, and most people do it because their poor. To ban it prevents unwanted pregnancies, prevents rape and allows for the preventions of STDs.

2.Homosexuality is just a attraction, it's a feeling . That is all it is. I'm not concerned with homosexuals, but rather Th behaviors that ruin the body. This concern includes anyone that mistreats themselves. People would respond "It's their choice",But the choice of people may not always be good.

3.people make mistakes. I have more than one comment to respond to.

4.Ofcourse it was the speeches. People will listen to anything that sounds good to them. Fascism simply was attractive to people across class lines, it was about making the "inspired" individuals going into a way to fight their enemies. This is the feature of all ideology. Force does not come without the thought of force.

5.maybe a racial supremacist can call for the destruction of your very existence.Since they can freely gather, then they can kill others with out restrictions.Anything that you would consider immoral would flourish in your "Free" society.

1. I'm not exactly the best guy to argue for prostitution, but I think that banning it is going a bit to far. I agree that in a society the business should be at least semi-regulated, but banning it is a different story.

2. Hoo-boy. First of all, homosexuality doesn't "ruin the body". And now you're saying to take away choice.

3. Ignored

4. Fascism rose because of the circumstances. If all an ideology needed to spread was to have speeches, then the US would be some kind of an authoritarian state by now, but it isn't. One of the main reasons it isn't authoritarian is because it allows the freedom of speech.

5. Just because you have a right to assemble and a right to protest doesn't mean you have a right to murder people who don't agree with you. Also, aren't you calling for the destruction of the very existence of those who don't agree with you? Also, immoral things do flourish in our free society, but our toleration of "immoral" things is what makes us free, because one day an authoritarian government might think that our ideas are "immoral"

[The New Teutonic Order]

This ^^

What if the people with different opinions seek their total destruction.

You're seeking the total destruction of people with different opinions, you hypocrite

[The New California Republic]

1.Prositution does not improve one's health, and most people do it because their poor.

Why can't prostitutes own the means of production like other workers?

To ban it prevents unwanted pregnancies,

No it doesn't.

prevents rape

No it doesn't.

and allows for the preventions of STDs.

No it doesn't.

2.Homosexuality is just a attraction, it's a feeling . That is all it is.

That statement says nothing. And, using that logic, isn't heterosexuality "just" an attraction/a feeling too?

I'm not concerned with homosexuals

It sounds like you are, since you are seeing fit to ban them from having sex...

This concern includes anyone that mistreats themselves. People would respond "It's their choice",But the choice of people may not always be good.

How am I, as a homosexual, mistreating myself?

4.Ofcourse it was the speeches.

No it wasn't. Fascism would never have gained power without the application of force and intimidation. Hitler used goons to silence the opposition.

5.maybe a racial supremacist can call for the destruction of your very existence.Since they can freely gather, then they can kill others with out restrictions.Anything that you would consider immoral would flourish in your "Free" society.

Emphasis on that crucial qualifying word at the start of the paragraph. Maybe.

And you are calling for the destruction of my very existence, by wanting homosexuality effectively banned by banning non-procreative sex. You see fit to ban the way that I live my life.

[Communal concils]

3.libertarianism allows all types of authoritarians to speak and live life,

You mean like people who advocate an actual 1984-esque state where non-reproductive sex is banned?

I would actually rather people show me other "dystopia's" other than 1984.Oceania isn't close to what I really seek. I seek the destruction of everything backwards of humanity. I know humanity is not perfect, I know regimes kill people. Power is only a tool for bettering life. If you have no power, you can't do anything, Sometimes to have power is to reject the power of others. Power of group destroys power of individuals, power of a individual destroys power of a group. In the end, their will never be complete freedom.

[Communal concils]

What if the people with different opinions seek their total destruction.

You're seeking the total destruction of people with different opinions, you hypocrite

I don't deny that. nearly everyone seeks the total destruction of different opinions. An anarchist oppresses Statist, he or she destroys the state against the will of the statist. A militant atheist believes in the destruction of religion(which wouldn't be peaceful).The conservative seeks to destroy the liberal, and the reactionary does not want anything new to exist.A socialist wants to destroy capitalism, but that's against the will of capitalist. A police has a right to kill, he can't always solve everything with an arrest.

The Tectonic Order wanted to convert Pagans to Christianity, but that was through the will to destroy the infidel. A pacifist wants to destroy violence, a revolution wants to obliterate the old order. Rights and freedoms seek to destroy certain injustices. All people with minds have Dogma.

[Azlaake]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[The New Teutonic Order]

You're seeking the total destruction of people with different opinions, you hypocrite

I don't deny that. nearly everyone seeks the total destruction of different opinions. An anarchist oppresses Statist, he or she destroys the state against the will of the statist. A militant atheist believes in the destruction of religion(which wouldn't be peaceful).The conservative seeks to destroy the liberal, and the reactionary does not want anything new to exist.A socialist wants to destroy capitalism, but that's against the will of capitalist. A police has a right to kill, he can't always solve everything with an arrest.

The Tectonic Order wanted to convert Pagans to Christianity, but that was through the will to destroy the infidel. A pacifist wants to destroy violence, a revolution wants to obliterate the old order. Rights and freedoms seek to destroy certain injustices. All people with minds have Dogma.

Well then, I'm not "nearly everyone", as I support a society in which different ideas can have discourse peacefully without any violence or bloodshed... which happens to be the society of the western world. I agree that sometimes I wish that some people would just shut up about their idiotic ideas, but I wouldn't want to purge them. A policeman has a right to kill people who are either a) threatening his life or b) threatening the lives of others - that has nothing to do with what their political opinions are.

[Cedoria]

Are America first conservatives progressives now?

To focus on your nation is progressive, because you can't do anything without addressing domestic issue's. Why must a socialist constantly focus on world revolution when it should try to protect it's self. This is the reason why Neo-Conservatives and Neo-liberals need to be controlled, and that is because they kill people for the sake of protecting a vague "Democracy". Not only that, but they can't even solve immigration issue's or anything like that. America "first" conservatives are hypocrites, they only listen to what their rich adopted father says. Trump is this "father", yet he has solved nothing domestically.

Sounds like you're advocating 'Socialism in One Country'.

Hate to break it to you mate, but that isn't a new leftist movement idea. It was Stalin's whole deal.

[Communal concils]

1.Prositution does not improve one's health, and most people do it because their poor.

Why can't prostitutes own the means of production like other workers?

To ban it prevents unwanted pregnancies,

No it doesn't.

prevents rape

No it doesn't.

and allows for the preventions of STDs.

No it doesn't.

2.Homosexuality is just a attraction, it's a feeling . That is all it is.

That statement says nothing. And, using that logic, isn't heterosexuality "just" an attraction/a feeling too?

I'm not concerned with homosexuals

It sounds like you are, since you are seeing fit to ban them from having sex...

This concern includes anyone that mistreats themselves. People would respond "It's their choice",But the choice of people may not always be good.

How am I, as a homosexual, mistreating myself?

4.Ofcourse it was the speeches.

No it wasn't. Fascism would never have gained power without the application of force and intimidation. Hitler used goons to silence the opposition.

5.maybe a racial supremacist can call for the destruction of your very existence.Since they can freely gather, then they can kill others with out restrictions.Anything that you would consider immoral would flourish in your "Free" society.

Emphasis on that crucial qualifying word at the start of the paragraph. Maybe.

And you are calling for the destruction of my very existence, by wanting homosexuality effectively banned by banning non-procreative sex. You see fit to ban the way that I live my life.

1.It can , prositiution can sometimes go against someone' will.so banning it will prevent the risk of sex slaves disguised as such things


2.Abuse happens in such jobs
3.abstaining from activity always helps limit the possibilities
4.Yes it's just a feel, one that nature wants. Nature hates every thing that isn't the majority of things

5.I'm a consequentialist.ethics should be base on the outcomes.Many behaviors people do are universal among orientations.

6.I don't know.it depends on the individual.I'll just assume that your a great individual.

7.The Goons were inspired by the Myth,the myth of a ideal.People will support anything they think is good.Ideals Govern the actions of all political groups.


8.okay

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

COMMUNAZI MURICA FOR THE EPIC WW4 DUB

[Lanoraie II]

Thread closure in 3, 2, 1...

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

So homosexuality is banned? Why the fuck do you want to do that?

It’s kind of pointless asking because lots of people want to ban it for no reason at all.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

-snip-

You accidentally quoted NCR instead of the OP.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

-snip-

You accidentally quoted NCR instead of the OP.

What if I were implying that NCR wanted to ban themself?

[Communal concils]

To focus on your nation is progressive, because you can't do anything without addressing domestic issue's. Why must a socialist constantly focus on world revolution when it should try to protect it's self. This is the reason why Neo-Conservatives and Neo-liberals need to be controlled, and that is because they kill people for the sake of protecting a vague "Democracy". Not only that, but they can't even solve immigration issue's or anything like that. America "first" conservatives are hypocrites, they only listen to what their rich adopted father says. Trump is this "father", yet he has solved nothing domestically.

Sounds like you're advocating 'Socialism in One Country'.

Hate to break it to you mate, but that isn't a new leftist movement idea. It was Stalin's whole deal.

There have been other socialist movements that supported the things I do. Jacobins;Banquist, Baathist and some utopian socialist supported these things,And their are several parties that hold elements of what I support. It's New in that it seeks to combine fundamental aspects of other ideologies.Ofcourse I also can't exclude the majority of Marxist-Leninist.

[Federally United Germany]

This is straight up communist fascism. I'm somewhat liberal-ish, I like Socialism/Social Democracy. This is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, as you're literally defeating the purpose of your own ideas by oppressing everyone.

[Federally United Germany]

Want the left to be better? Kick out all the Feminazi's and the SJW's. They completely ruined the left wing. I used to be left wing too, but I am a rather radical centrist nowadays. Meaning I am a strong centrist, although I must admit I lean towards the libertarian side.

(Image)

Stop complaining. This isn't the 1960s, and I'm sorry if you get butthurt by people kindly telling you to stop saying slurs in casual conversation. Tell me, fellow human being, have you ever been insulted due to something relating to your body or anything of the like before? If you have, then you know what those people who complain feel...and they feel that every day. They try to put up with it, but after all, why not just tell them to stop? You have been tricked by the right, my friend. The only people who truly do the things which are 'feminazi' or 'SJW' are just people kindly telling you to stop insulting them. In fact, the right does this doles more than the left. Make a joke about any right-winger beloved by people in your country (something quite insulting, like turning their corpse into a public urinal or about how if they were replaced by literal dirt, the country would've been better off, yada yada), or something relating to old imperial pasts/soldiers in wars, etc..Basically anything that has national pride attached to it. Then wait. They'll react worse than if you played 10 hours of slurs in front of left-wingers.

Almost 100% of that is subjective.

[Free Arabian Nation]

This is straight up communist fascism. I'm somewhat liberal-ish, I like Socialism/Social Democracy. This is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, as you're literally defeating the purpose of your own ideas by oppressing everyone.

Exhibit A: The Tankie's Curse.

[Athonuna]

You're seeking the total destruction of people with different opinions, you hypocrite

I don't deny that. nearly everyone seeks the total destruction of different opinions. An anarchist oppresses Statist, he or she destroys the state against the will of the statist. A militant atheist believes in the destruction of religion(which wouldn't be peaceful).The conservative seeks to destroy the liberal, and the reactionary does not want anything new to exist.A socialist wants to destroy capitalism, but that's against the will of capitalist. A police has a right to kill, he can't always solve everything with an arrest.

The Tectonic Order wanted to convert Pagans to Christianity, but that was through the will to destroy the infidel. A pacifist wants to destroy violence, a revolution wants to obliterate the old order. Rights and freedoms seek to destroy certain injustices. All people with minds have Dogma.

But you're assuming that that's morally and objectively okay. And you're also wrong. A person that loves humanity and freedom will love other people expressing different opinions, even if they don't love the opinions. The destruction of other opinions regardless of who's doing it is fascism, and that's exactly what you're advocating. There are minimal differences between communism and fascism, and I do believe socialism can't be any better than communism, if not much worse. And anyone that doesn't agree with your opinions would think that this is fascism, as might even you. Most people can agree that fascism was a very harmful ideology that still exists today, and what you're proposing would only serve to bring it back and oppress numerous people. Freedom is always better than oppression, and only bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrants would disagree.

[Communal concils]

I don't deny that. nearly everyone seeks the total destruction of different opinions. An anarchist oppresses Statist, he or she destroys the state against the will of the statist. A militant atheist believes in the destruction of religion(which wouldn't be peaceful).The conservative seeks to destroy the liberal, and the reactionary does not want anything new to exist.A socialist wants to destroy capitalism, but that's against the will of capitalist. A police has a right to kill, he can't always solve everything with an arrest.

The Tectonic Order wanted to convert Pagans to Christianity, but that was through the will to destroy the infidel. A pacifist wants to destroy violence, a revolution wants to obliterate the old order. Rights and freedoms seek to destroy certain injustices. All people with minds have Dogma.

But you're assuming that that's morally and objectively okay. And you're also wrong. A person that loves humanity and freedom will love other people expressing different opinions, even if they don't love the opinions. The destruction of other opinions regardless of who's doing it is fascism, and that's exactly what you're advocating. There are minimal differences between communism and fascism, and I do believe socialism can't be any better than communism, if not much worse. And anyone that doesn't agree with your opinions would think that this is fascism, as might even you. Most people can agree that fascism was a very harmful ideology that still exists today, and what you're proposing would only serve to bring it back and oppress numerous people. Freedom is always better than oppression, and only bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrants would disagree.

You are just saying the idealist form of Liberal person.A Liberal does not actually love the expressions of those that contradict them completely.The French revolution was originally Liberal, but it created the most illeberal system.It created nations base on liberal ideals, but these nations oppress people.You also assumed that your ideals are morally and objectively okay,any ideologue does.Freedom is differant to others.My concept of freedom is differant from yours.I don't really care about the feelings of all opponenets,because they would do the samething.How many people died under the name of democracy and freedom,how many died for liberalism. Chile under Pinochet was economically liberal,does that examlple give me a right to discredit your deals.What has democracy actually done to prevent fascism.Democracy is destined to fail,and that's because of economic and cultural situations of a society.