Sugar & Spice

[Indomitable Friendship]

I would like to achieve a compromise between left and right libertarianism and synthesize the 2 into something that strikes a reasonable mix of cost and benefit between them. To achieve this, I offer an alternative concept to government: servicement. I believe a mix of free markets and a public apparatus to rend services to its citizens, not govern them, is feasible. I think there is merit in both the collectivist nature of left wing libertarianism and its more individualistic counterpart on the other side.

How would this "servicement" function? I propose optional taxes and citizenship as a membership, rather than the starting default for a person at birth. So, I propose that services are provided free of charge to persons under a certain age, let's say 16 for the example and then anytime after that age, a person can choose to acquire citizenship (membership) to the nation. The services they "buy" into are: emergency medical care, social services like gymnasiums, public transportation, welfare, libraries, drug rehabilitation centers, the military for protection of sovereignty, 2 years of free higher education and general infrastructure. Hypothetically, if a person has no job to pay taxes with, they may do military service or some other type of public work to get them going, otherwise, failure to pay membership dues will result in suspension of services for an individual. If a person doesn't want citizenship for some reason or is financially destitute, there will be basic homeless shelters provided.

Mutualism will be the de facto non-business paradigm and syndicalism is encouraged. Private property will not be recognized by the servicement. Private property is the domain of the private sector. Let me give a hypothetical example:
Let's say an elderly individual occupies a house and dies. The servicement will not recognize any inheritance of property to someone else. If the house is occupied by someone else who seizes it, so be it. Property ownership is predicated on defense and usage. If you hold it, then it's yours. Disputes will arise and they are solely the business of the involved parties. Not my problem, unless it actually is.

•The servicement will be constitutionally banned from using taxes for anything but funding explicitly defined public services and infrastructure.
•Public law enforcement will be constitutionally banned to safeguard freedom.
•Public prisons are constitutionally banned to safeguard freedom.
•A public judicial system is constitutionally banned to safeguard freedom.
•Decentralized currency will be the economic unit and central banking is constitutionally banned.

One of the most glaring flaws of right wing libertarianism is the lack of realistic environmental protection and conservation and since it is a universal matter, transcending both the notions of public and private, the servicement will partner with private business to guide production in an environmentally conscious and sustainable direction and urban planning is the chief right of the servicement. Urban development will be a joint venture between capital and public to ensure functionality, quality and health. This environmental agency leaders must be democratically elected by the citizenry. Appointing authority positions to the environmental agency by the servicement is constitutionally banned.

Other than that, the servicement will function as a business apparatus and as such, positions are to be filled by hiring individuals rather than electing them. Constitutionally, only citizens are eligible.

Gun control and abortion laws are fascism and this structure does not recognize the NAP. Fuck the NAP. The goal is not to create a perfect ideological utopia for anyone, but to compromise on enough things for most to meet in the center with. While there will be interpersonal conflict, there are provisions to reduce it like providing free drug rehabilitation, access to athletics facilities, free higher education to learn skills for, "good enough" welfare, homeless housing, providing libraries that also stock equipment for hobbies for people to use and socially oriented business encouragement.

Please discuss and criticize, thanks.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You lost most of the left libs the moment you said "free markets".

[Ifreann]

I would like to achieve a compromise between left and right libertarianism

No thanks.

[Hukhalia]

People who try and synthesise "left"-"libertarian" and "right"-"libertarian" (god I hate the political compass) schools of thought neglect the fundamental fact that the former tend to be more thoroughly against most hierarchies in theory, whereas the latter generally sees it implicitly in the nature of the firm, business, etc.

[Indomitable Friendship]

(god I hate the political compass)

I also dislike it, but for the sake of interest, where would you place this system on the map?

[Ifreann]

(god I hate the political compass)

I also dislike it, but for the sake of interest, where would you place this system on the map?

I would place it in the bin.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I also dislike it, but for the sake of interest, where would you place this system on the map?

I would place it in the bin.

Sure, but if the compass happened to be at the bottom, where do you think this would land on it? Feel free to air your grievances if you're inclined, too.

[Hukhalia]

I also dislike it, but for the sake of interest, where would you place this system on the map?

I would place it in the bin.

One of the rare moments I'll say Ifreann is spot on here.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I would place it in the bin.

One of the rare moments I'll say Ifreann is spot on here.

Let me have it both barrels, then.

[Hukhalia]

One of the rare moments I'll say Ifreann is spot on here.

Let me have it both barrels, then.

I'm just saying that the political compass is a shit model, as are most mainstream conceived models of politics. Let's move beyond basic dichotomies that could be understood by a five-year-old.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Let me have it both barrels, then.

I'm just saying that the political compass is a shit model, as are most mainstream conceived models of politics. Let's move beyond basic dichotomies that could be understood by a five-year-old.

I agree, anything else? On a scale of "meh, could be worse" to "blood is squirting from my eyes while reading this", where ya got me at?

[Hukhalia]

I'm just saying that the political compass is a shit model, as are most mainstream conceived models of politics. Let's move beyond basic dichotomies that could be understood by a five-year-old.

I agree, anything else? On a scale of "meh, could be worse" to "blood is squirting from my eyes while reading this", where ya got me at?

Trending towards the latter. Libertarian/Authoritarian as a model of politics is cancerous.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I agree, anything else? On a scale of "meh, could be worse" to "blood is squirting from my eyes while reading this", where ya got me at?

Trending towards the latter. Libertarian/Authoritarian as a model of politics is cancerous.

Why & why?

[Indomitable Friendship]

*throws goat's blood on the floor and starts chanting*
Brb, I'm summoning Heloin.

[Hukhalia]

Trending towards the latter. Libertarian/Authoritarian as a model of politics is cancerous.

Why & why?

Why no. 1: the answer is why no. 2.
Why no. 2:

Anyone who identifies with a broad streak of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" as a trend for a society at large is incredibly politically reductionist to just the apparatus of state rather than all the niches around it. Authority is applied in many different ways, and its entire character depends on who's exercising it. It's because you need to look at society from multiple perspectives. To the slaver, the enslaved person is their property. They are conditioned to think so by their status as a slaver, by living in a slaver society, et cetera. To take their slaves from them is to take their property from them; incredibly authoritarian! But to the enslaved person, to take the slaver's "property" from them is to liberate them. The act of liberating the enslaved person, unless the master does so willingly (which is rare and does not really occur on a society-wide level), is to use authority in order to liberate; to be both "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at once. Once you apply an analysis like this to society at large (the relationship between the citizen and the state, between worker and boss, between jailor and inmate, etc), it's impossible to make many conclusions on broad authority and liberty as guiding social principles because all things are authoritarian or libertarian depending on your perspective. So your model of politics, which aims merely to maximise liberty as a single thing rather than any concrete political analysis between interest groups in society, is pretty substanceless.

[Senkaku]

I would like to achieve a compromise between left and right libertarianism

Why? Why are so many people, on this site and in general, obsessed with trying to invent their own nonsensical “compromises” between irreconcilable political lines? Based on your posting history, I would’ve said a better use of your time would have been revisiting high school biology.

I'm just saying that the political compass is a shit model, as are most mainstream conceived models of politics. Let's move beyond basic dichotomies that could be understood by a five-year-old.

I agree, anything else? On a scale of "meh, could be worse" to "blood is squirting from my eyes while reading this", where ya got me at?

It’s neither. It’s nothing. It’s meaningless. Your understanding of politics is as limited as your understanding of biology, culture, and race.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Why & why?

Why no. 1: the answer is why no. 2.
Why no. 2:

Anyone who identifies with a broad streak of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" as a trend for a society at large is incredibly politically reductionist to just the apparatus of state rather than all the niches around it. Authority is applied in many different ways, and its entire character depends on who's exercising it. It's because you need to look at society from multiple perspectives. To the slaver, the enslaved person is their property. They are conditioned to think so by their status as a slaver, by living in a slaver society, et cetera. To take their slaves from them is to take their property from them; incredibly authoritarian! But to the enslaved person, to take the slaver's "property" from them is to liberate them. The act of liberating the enslaved person, unless the master does so willingly (which is rare and does not really occur on a society-wide level), is to use authority in order to liberate; to be both "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at once. Once you apply an analysis like this to society at large (the relationship between the citizen and the state, between worker and boss, between jailor and inmate, etc), it's impossible to make many conclusions on broad authority and liberty as guiding social principles because all things are authoritarian or libertarian depending on your perspective. So your model of politics, which aims merely to maximise liberty as a single thing rather than any concrete political analysis between interest groups in society, is pretty substanceless.

OK, so let's throw out all the rhetorical bullshit. Do you think this paradigm is sufficiently liberal in practice from your perspective? Do you have any bones to pick? I'm not trying to pull your teeth; it just feels like you have something to say but are dancing around it.

[Hukhalia]

Why no. 1: the answer is why no. 2.
Why no. 2:

Anyone who identifies with a broad streak of "authoritarian" or "libertarian" as a trend for a society at large is incredibly politically reductionist to just the apparatus of state rather than all the niches around it. Authority is applied in many different ways, and its entire character depends on who's exercising it. It's because you need to look at society from multiple perspectives. To the slaver, the enslaved person is their property. They are conditioned to think so by their status as a slaver, by living in a slaver society, et cetera. To take their slaves from them is to take their property from them; incredibly authoritarian! But to the enslaved person, to take the slaver's "property" from them is to liberate them. The act of liberating the enslaved person, unless the master does so willingly (which is rare and does not really occur on a society-wide level), is to use authority in order to liberate; to be both "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at once. Once you apply an analysis like this to society at large (the relationship between the citizen and the state, between worker and boss, between jailor and inmate, etc), it's impossible to make many conclusions on broad authority and liberty as guiding social principles because all things are authoritarian or libertarian depending on your perspective. So your model of politics, which aims merely to maximise liberty as a single thing rather than any concrete political analysis between interest groups in society, is pretty substanceless.

OK, so let's throw out all the rhetorical bullshit. Do you think this paradigm is sufficiently liberal in practice from your perspective? Do you have any bones to pick? I'm not trying to pull your teeth; it just feels like you have something to say but are dancing around it.

The sufficient amount of liberalism for me is precisely none. Your politics are very liberal and I hate them.

[Hamidiye]

OK, so let's throw out all the rhetorical bullshit. Do you think this paradigm is sufficiently liberal in practice from your perspective? Do you have any bones to pick? I'm not trying to pull your teeth; it just feels like you have something to say but are dancing around it.

The sufficient amount of liberalism for me is precisely none. Your politics are very liberal and I hate them.

I feel like posting a gimli and legolas meme right now...

[Hukhalia]

The sufficient amount of liberalism for me is precisely none. Your politics are very liberal and I hate them.

I feel like posting a gimli and legolas meme right now...

But you, too, are a liberal.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I would like to achieve a compromise between left and right libertarianism

Why? Why are so many people, on this site and in general, obsessed with trying to invent their own nonsensical “compromises” between irreconcilable political lines? Based on your posting history, I would’ve said a better use of your time would have been revisiting high school biology.

I agree, anything else? On a scale of "meh, could be worse" to "blood is squirting from my eyes while reading this", where ya got me at?

It’s neither. It’s nothing. It’s meaningless. Your understanding of politics is as limited as your understanding of biology, culture, and race.

And there's the "spice" .

Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xMmTkf ... rt_radio=1

BTW, please don't regard the disclaimer of that video as a slight against you. I'm just vibing on that jam and it fits muh mood.

[Hamidiye]

I feel like posting a gimli and legolas meme right now...

But you, too, are a liberal.

Ah yes, when the democratic process is a sign of liberalist tendencies...

Still, I feel like we both can agree on many of the reasons why this thread is pure cringe.

[Indomitable Friendship]

OK, so let's throw out all the rhetorical bullshit. Do you think this paradigm is sufficiently liberal in practice from your perspective? Do you have any bones to pick? I'm not trying to pull your teeth; it just feels like you have something to say but are dancing around it.

The sufficient amount of liberalism for me is precisely none. Your politics are very liberal and I hate them.

So......your ideal political system is an ant hive?

[Indomitable Friendship]

But you, too, are a liberal.

Ah yes, when the democratic process is a sign of liberalist tendencies...

Still, I feel like we both can agree on many of the reasons why this thread is pure cringe.

Reasons of which you're all suspiciously tight lipped on .

[Vistulange]

Trending towards the latter. Libertarian/Authoritarian as a model of politics is cancerous.

Why & why?

Because politics is a lot more complicated than "this is libertarian, and this is authoritarian". Yes, NSG loves to use the political compass...and it's a crap tool for any sort of real effort on the issue at hand.