What is to you the worst/most terrifying ideology?

[Blakk Metal]

I don't see many leftists supporting complete government control of businesses and personal lives, either.

Socialists do.

[The Old South]

Nazism to some extent, and the extreme Communist ideologies that remind me of Nazism (Stalinism, Maoism, etc)

[Genivaria]

I don't see many leftists supporting complete government control of businesses and personal lives, either.

Socialists do.

Businesses perhaps, but the only ones that I see endorsing controlling personal lives is the religious right.

So we're not considering Dokuritsu Nippon a leftist?

Actually, I want to abolish private businesses, and am a social libertarian. Just not structural or economic. ^__^

No your not, your an authoritarian.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Socialists do.

Businesses perhaps, but the only ones that I see endorsing controlling personal lives is the religious right.

Actually, I want to abolish private businesses, and am a social libertarian. Just not structural or economic. ^__^

No your not, your an authoritarian.

^This: No libertarian of any degree could support North Korea.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Actually, I want to abolish private businesses, and am a social libertarian. Just not structural or economic. ^__^

No your not, your an authoritarian.

Socially, I am. I'm all in favor of gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc.

I simply support the edifice of a vanguard state.

There's no real contradiction between the two, as they focus on different facets of society - the former of social positions, the latter of the structure of the state.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Businesses perhaps, but the only ones that I see endorsing controlling personal lives is the religious right.

No your not, your an authoritarian.

^This: No libertarian of any degree could support North Korea.

Some in the KFA outright identify as Libertarians actually (from something of an anti-war angle more than anything else, but they exist).

[Genivaria]

No your not, your an authoritarian.

Socially, I am. I'm all in favor of gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc.

I simply support the edifice of a vanguard state.

There's no real contradiction between the two, as they focus on different facets of society - the former of social positions, the latter of the structure of the state.

If you don't support self-government of and by the people then you can't call yourself either a liberal or libertarian.

^This: No libertarian of any degree could support North Korea.

Some in the KFA outright identify as Libertarians actually (from something of an anti-war angle more than anything else, but they exist).

They're delusional then, like most members of the NK government.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

If you don't support self-government of and by the people then you can't call yourself either a liberal or libertarian.

I actively despise the term "liberal", so I shan't claim that.

And as said, for the third time, now, I ascribe to libertarian positions only on social issues (something that socialism itself, focused on economics and the structure of the state, doesn't deal with).

^This: No libertarian of any degree could support North Korea.

Some in the KFA outright identify as Libertarians actually (from something of an anti-war angle more than anything else, but they exist).

They're delusional then, like most members of the NK government.[/quote]

Lovely unneeded ad hominems.

And the KFA is an international organization, made up mainly of Europeans and American/Canadians.

[Threlizdun]

And as said, for the third time, now, I ascribe to libertarian positions only on social issues (something that socialism itself, focused on economics and the structure of the state, doesn't deal with).

Such petty distinctions are meaningless. You cannot claim to support liberty while at the same time adovating oppression. Socialism most certainly tied with libertarian thought because both are necessary to liberate the individual from tyranny.

Lovely unneeded ad hominems.

And the KFA is an international organization, made up mainly of Europeans and American/Canadians.

So is the Flat Earth Society, and they are just as delusional.

[Free South Califas]

I don't see many leftists supporting complete government control of businesses and personal lives, either.

Socialists do.

Absolutely not true in any universal sense. Pierre Proudhon was a socialist and addressed his dictum "Property is Liberty" to the free artisan at the same time as he told the worker, the servant and the slave, "Property is Theft". Proudhon, his type of Anarchists (Mutualists) and other libertarian socialists recognize(d) a distinction between private property--capital, and the means of production--vs personal property (you and your family's home, tools, recreational materials, whatever else you need for a free and nonexploitative life). This and other examples of libertarian socialism are available in my sig, especially in the link "Anarchy".

So civilization?

Anarchy is not disorder. It is a form of direct democracy where there is no state and people govern themselves and there is no political or state classes. Simply, it is absence of state.

.
              Wishes for freedom,
                      An anarchist.

To add some specificity to that, for those who are curious: the most likely structure of an anarchist political society involves express positive mandates (voting on issues not representative candidates), industrial democracy (workers control production, sale, and relevant decision-making democratically within the workplace), federal delegation (each community and/or workplace votes on a candidate who is then made to take on the express positive mandates and argue for them as if hir own opinion), and instant recall (the weapon that keeps delegates in line).

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

And as said, for the third time, now, I ascribe to libertarian positions only on social issues (something that socialism itself, focused on economics and the structure of the state, doesn't deal with).

Such petty distinctions are meaningless. You cannot claim to support liberty while at the same time adovating oppression.

Once more, as this is getting quite tiring by now, on social issues, and social issues alone, I hold virtually identical positions to most libertarians (well, that and foreign policy, come to think of it, and general irreligious of most, etc.)

And I advocate the liberation of the masses from the capitalist-imperialist system. I simply feel that a vanguard state, led by the intellectual working class, is the only viable means of achieving such.

Socialism most certainly tied with libertarian thought because both are necessary to liberate the individual from tyranny.

I'm not a hyper-individualist, but to the extent that society is composed of individuals, and capitalist repression is tyrannical, sure.

Lovely unneeded ad hominems.

And the KFA is an international organization, made up mainly of Europeans and American/Canadians.

So is the Flat Earth Society, and they are just as delusional.

[/quote]

It's delusional to advocate for peace (literally all that is required to join the KFA is to want an end to the Korean War - Billy Graham for instance, generally a rightist is in fact a member)?

And again, needless ad hominems... >__<

[Threlizdun]

Once more, as this is getting quite tiring by now, on social issues, and social issues alone, I hold virtually identical positions to most libertarians (well, that and foreign policy, come to think of it, and general irreligious of most, etc.)

And I advocate the liberation of the masses from the capitalist-imperialist system. I simply feel that a vanguard state, led by the intellectual working class, is the only viable means of achieving such.

Ignoring the absurdity of the idea of a "workers' state", such support of a vanguard state is completely incompatible with libertarianism. It is like one saying that they support democracy, but believe only a handful of people should have any influence.

It's delusional to advocate for peace (literally all that is required to join the KFA is to want an end to the Korean War - Billy Graham for instance, generally a rightist is in fact a member)?

And again, needless ad hominems... >__<

The KFA denies the human rights violations committed by the North Korean state and claims to stand in defence of the Juche ideology. That is what is delusional.

[Namabia]

Anything that believes in taking people's rights.

FYI. Big government is taking people's rights and small government is incapable of jurisdiction over its own borders.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Once more, as this is getting quite tiring by now, on social issues, and social issues alone, I hold virtually identical positions to most libertarians (well, that and foreign policy, come to think of it, and general irreligious of most, etc.)

And I advocate the liberation of the masses from the capitalist-imperialist system. I simply feel that a vanguard state, led by the intellectual working class, is the only viable means of achieving such.

Ignoring the absurdity of the idea of a "workers' state", such support of a vanguard state is completely incompatible with libertarianism. It is like one saying that they support democracy, but believe only a handful of people should have any influence.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I claim to agree with libertarians only on social matters (and foreign policy, in hindsight).

It's delusional to advocate for peace (literally all that is required to join the KFA is to want an end to the Korean War - Billy Graham for instance, generally a rightist is in fact a member)?

And again, needless ad hominems... >__<

The KFA denies the human rights violations committed by the North Korean state and claims to stand in defence of the Juche ideology. That is what is delusional.

Individual members may or may not. As an organization it only advocates for an end to the Korean war, and has members of a wide variety of ideological positions. Including, again, Billy Graham.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist atheism. Anything system which is based on faith alone, divorced from human reason, and especially which is based on emotional arguments such as "preventing people from loving each other" and that kind of crap.

I speak from logic, from observations, and from reason - as, at first, I thought a lot of atheists did. My Catholic faith speaks from these things, too. The faith of fundamentalists, however, is unfounded. (Well, it is founded in many ways because what they believe has rays of truth in it. They either just don't know about it, don't care, or from them, again, reason is divorced from faith.)

For me - and any serious Christian - reason and faith cannot contradict. If they do, it is not because nature or God are lying, but because our human intellects have misunderstood something.

How can light be both a particle and a wave? We do not know, save that we have seen.
How can God be both human and divine? We do not know, save that we have seen.

[New Rogernomics]

The one portrayed in 1984, or more likely one closer to our world Brave New World:

The novel opens in London in 632 (AD 2540 in the Gregorian Calendar). The vast majority of the population is unified under the World State, an eternally peaceful, stable global society in which goods and resources are plentiful (because the population is permanently limited to no more than two billion people) and everyone is happy. Natural reproduction has been done away with and children are created, 'decanted' and raised in Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres, where they are divided into five castes (which are further split into 'Plus' and 'Minus' members) and designed to fulfill predetermined positions within the social and economic strata of the World State.

[Xathranaar]

Anything that believes in taking people's rights.

FYI. Big government is taking people's rights and small government is incapable of jurisdiction over its own borders.

Lincoln wanted to take away people's right to own slaves. I assume you oppose this?

There is a distinction to be make between positive and negative freedoms (no moral connotation), and you simply cannot have both in every situation. Sometimes rights must be taken away in the pursuit of greater freedom.

[Seperates]

Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist atheism. Anything system which is based on faith alone, divorced from human reason, and especially which is based on emotional arguments such as "preventing people from loving each other" and that kind of crap.

I speak from logic, from observations, and from reason - as, at first, I thought a lot of atheists did. My Catholic faith speaks from these things, too. The faith of fundamentalists, however, is unfounded. (Well, it is founded in many ways because what they believe has rays of truth in it. They either just don't know about it, don't care, or from them, again, reason is divorced from faith.)

For me - and any serious Christian - reason and faith cannot contradict. If they do, it is not because nature or God are lying, but because our human intellects have misunderstood something.

How can light be both a particle and a wave? We do not know, save that we have seen.
How can God be both human and divine? We do not know, save that we have seen.

But is this not a fundementalist assumption? To assume that all of our observations are flawed?

[Free South Califas]

It's truly depressing how much ignorance is being spread at these churches where people are being told that atheism is some kind of faith as well The inductive reasoning alone is painful to observe.

[Florinia]

Nazism would be the obvious answer, but somehow, I feel like saying Dictatorship instead.

[Zaras]

Because I need to waste my time on the next batch of forum users who are consistently clueless about communism just like the previous batch of forum users and the batch before that, who refuse to actually abandon their arguments and respond to people pointing out that they don't have a clue what they're talking about by doubling down on the same tired bullshit arguments.

How about instead of calling people clueless and stupid, you make a thread about Communism, then link it whenver you wish to educate someone.

There's already been a few, especially OTFST's thread about how Communism isn't Stalinism, but do they actually bother to read them, or do they just continue to parrot their stupid shit? Too often the latter is the actual result.

Or, you could continue to make yourself appear like a pompous jerk,

Beats appearing like a clueless idiot who doesn't know anything about communism but hates it like a McCarthyite.

and only make the people who agree with you alreeady respect you.

I don't want to be respected by people who don't know shit about communism.

[Onora]

Transhumanism

[Northern Dominus]

Transhumanism

What's so terrifying about Transhumanism exactly?

[Czechanada]

Transhumanism

What's so terrifying about Transhumanism exactly?

Yeah, you get cool implants and such.

[Chestaan]

I don't see many leftists supporting complete government control of businesses and personal lives, either.

Socialists do.

Why do you get to tell us what we do and don't support?