Your political compass.

[Diseased Imaginings]

Pretty soon, you're going to be Marx 2.

nah, I don't think I'll ever accept leftist economics. I simply don't think that markets are necessarily infallible anymore like I once did.

if anything, I'll just end up being a second Hydesland. Hell, we're both economics majors anyway

[Meryuma]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

Yeah.

Not to be egotistic, but I think I can take some amount of credit for that.

Pretty soon, you're going to be Marx 2.

nah, I don't think I'll ever accept leftist economics. I simply don't think that markets are necessarily infallible anymore like I once did.

I was a pretty hardcore market type for a while, and even then I was a leftist.

Besides, the "Marx 2" comment was a joke.

[Diseased Imaginings]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

Not to be egotistic, but I think I can take some amount of credit for that.

nah, I find that I don't agree with you pretty much most of the time. Probably because I definitely favor globalism rather than the small communes that you favor.

[Herrebrugh]

Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

As mentioned in my signature

[Meryuma]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

http://vaguelyhumanoid.wordpress.com/20 ... -overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_ ... _theory%29
http://www.mutualist.org/id23.html (sadly, this one is incomplete)

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

Not to be egotistic, but I think I can take some amount of credit for that.

nah, I find that I don't agree with you pretty much most of the time. Probably because I definitely favor globalism rather than the small communes that you favor.

I meant for the rise in mutualism.

[Costa Fiero]

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authortarian: 2.51

So, essentially, I'm on the right and in the authortarian quarter.

[Natapoc]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

Think of it as favoring an anti capitalist free market without the state. There are many variations of mutualism and mutualist thaught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_ ... _theory%29

[Diseased Imaginings]

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

http://vaguelyhumanoid.wordpress.com/20 ... -overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_ ... _theory%29
http://www.mutualist.org/id23.html (sadly, this one is incomplete)

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.


nah, I find that I don't agree with you pretty much most of the time. Probably because I definitely favor globalism rather than the small communes that you favor.

I meant for the rise in mutualism.

the thing is though, I'm not a definite mutualist. Although I do like the "property through use" concept as a basis for natural property rights, I don't agree with the part of it that says that an individual cannot bar others from using a resource, particularly the bit that business owners can't claim ownership of the resources that employees use. When a single person starts a business, he must first buy those resources himself. When he hires somebody, he agrees already to pay the man a standard share of the profits (if there weren't profits made, then the business owner would have nothing with which to pay the man). To me, that seems like a fair exchange for resources. To give the employee actual ownership of the capital used would be a bit unfair to the business owner in my opinion.

[Natapoc]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

Yeah.

Not to be egotistic, but I think I can take some amount of credit for that.

Good work! Our plan for anarchist world anti domination is going as scheduled.

(although I don't really prefer mutualism, I'll take any (legitimate) form of mutualism over what we've got any day. )

I think part of the rise in mutualism is that it's a compromise between the legitimate right libertarians and the legitimate left-libertarians.

The Monarchism via Capitalism and Neo-Leninists will never agree to it. So it appeals to the human desire to find a reasonable compromise between extremes while still refusing to consent to the unjust authority of a violent state.

[Meryuma]

http://vaguelyhumanoid.wordpress.com/20 ... -overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_ ... _theory%29
http://www.mutualist.org/id23.html (sadly, this one is incomplete)



I meant for the rise in mutualism.

the thing is though, I'm not a definite mutualist. Although I do like the "property through use" concept as a basis for natural property rights, I don't agree with the part of it that says that an individual cannot bar others from using a resource, particularly the bit that business owners can't claim ownership of the resources that employees use. When a single person starts a business, he must first buy those resources himself. When he hires somebody, he agrees already to pay the man a standard share of the profits (if there weren't profits made, then the business owner would have nothing with which to pay the man). To me, that seems like a fair exchange for resources. To give the employee actual ownership of the capital used would be a bit unfair to the business owner in my opinion.

The problem is that hierarchical employment leads to zero-sum liberty: the liberty of the employer is at the expense of the employee's. This leads to all sorts of social problems.

[Diseased Imaginings]

one idea that I've had for a market economy (that sort of combines leftist principles) is that of widespread corporatism. This would require most businesses in society to be a public corporation, large and small. Instead of simply being paid a wage as an employee, you would be paid in either a mix of monetary wages and company stock, or just stock if you want it. This way, resources are still owned by the firm proper, but the employees are still legal owners of small parts of the firm that they work for.

It seems like a fair compromise to me, though I have no idea if it would work well in reality. It's something I'd like to explore more when I get into grad school for economics in a year or two.

[Chunc]

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

It sometimes changes a little, but is always lower left.

[Meryuma]

one idea that I've had for a market economy (that sort of combines leftist principles) is that of widespread corporatism. This would require most businesses in society to be a public corporation, large and small. Instead of simply being paid a wage as an employee, you would be paid in either a mix of monetary wages and company stock, or just stock if you want it. This way, resources are still owned by the firm proper, but the employees are still legal owners of small parts of the firm that they work for.

Corporatism is where different interest groups are incorporated together and contract under a state and/or with each other to facilitate social unity, with the intent of the overall economy being organized as an organic body (or corpus). You're thinking of a corporation-based system, which is different.

[Diseased Imaginings]

The problem is that hierarchical employment leads to zero-sum liberty: the liberty of the employer is at the expense of the employee's. This leads to all sorts of social problems.

the thing is though, employment in a traditional capitalist market is a voluntary exchange of services. If an employee disagrees to the terms of his current exchange, he is free to enter a new agreement with any other firm.

widespread discrimination (like in the 20th century USA) is surely one of the social problems that you are referencing. Funnily enough, if a business owner refuses to hire or sell to a large number of people, he will be acting against his own self interest in a capitalist economy. By refusing to hire, for example, black people, he decreases his available labor supply, which drives input prices up, hurting his profits. By refusing to sell to (again) black people, he greatly lessons his quantity demanded, which greatly reduces his revenue, and therefore also his profits.

people often say that communism failed historically because of the rational failings of the people involved. What they don't realize is the same is also true for capitalism

[Diseased Imaginings]

one idea that I've had for a market economy (that sort of combines leftist principles) is that of widespread corporatism. This would require most businesses in society to be a public corporation, large and small. Instead of simply being paid a wage as an employee, you would be paid in either a mix of monetary wages and company stock, or just stock if you want it. This way, resources are still owned by the firm proper, but the employees are still legal owners of small parts of the firm that they work for.

Corporatism is where different interest groups are incorporated together and contract under a state and/or with each other to facilitate social unity, with the intent of the overall economy being organized as an organic body (or corpus). You're thinking of a corporation-based system, which is different.

indeed, I don't have a better name for it right now.

[Souffrance]

-7.5,-7.49

[Vecherd]

[Natapoc]

:) Looks like you are starting to drift into mutualist land. It seems like there are more mutualists on NSG lately.

by the way, what is mutualism? I don't think I've ever heard it explained.

Not to be egotistic, but I think I can take some amount of credit for that.

nah, I find that I don't agree with you pretty much most of the time. Probably because I definitely favor globalism rather than the small communes that you favor.

From my perspective, Meryuma has moved on from mutualism being dominant and onto a form of green anarchy/eco-anarchism. It's not that he's abandoned mutualism but what you see the most is probably his green anarchist anti-civ side rather than his mutualist side.

I like many aspects of green anarchy also. It's historically related to a philosophy called anarcho-naturism in the 1920s that advocated nudism, hiking, vegetarianism, small eco-villages, ect.

I'm all for it! Lets start a nudist vegan commune!

[Meryuma]

The problem is that hierarchical employment leads to zero-sum liberty: the liberty of the employer is at the expense of the employee's. This leads to all sorts of social problems.

the thing is though, employment in a traditional capitalist market is a voluntary exchange of services. If an employee disagrees to the terms of his current exchange, he is free to enter a new agreement with any other firm.

That's the ideal, but when all the complexity and messiness of real life enters the equation, shit hits the fan. Take, for instance, the concept of wage slavery. In this scenario, an individual is impoverished. They must work for a wage to survive. Add in the oligopolized nature of markets under existing capitalism, the power dynamic that often comes with private property and the threat of authoritarian social values and things can get very, very bad.

From my perspective, Meryuma has moved on from mutualism being dominant and onto a form of green anarchy/eco-anarchism. It's not that he's abandoned mutualism but what you see the most is probably his green anarchist anti-civ side rather than his mutualist side.

Exactly. I have a lot of influences, really.

[Hresejnen]

In my sig. However, I peg myself as a little more right, and a little more libertarian than what the PC gives me. Perhaps because in my ideal world, it's really difficult to divide the "people" from the "state", which is what the PC puts a pretty strong divide between.

[Veceria]

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

[Romlia]

That test was very, very badly written.

[Georgism]

[Democratic Koyro]

[Great New Albion]

I don't think these politcal compasses really work so well.. I did one and it said I was liberal and then I did another one and it said I was totaletarian at the complete opposite end of the scale.