[Odyssey]

Economic Issues:

-Government doesnt regulate the market.
-Private Healthcare
-Private Schooling
-Encouraged competition and entrepreneurship
-Limited Government which deals only with Immigration, Military (limited) and Foreign Affairs

National Issues.

-Immigrants should respect the traditions and religion of the country and not try to change it. Those who do shall be sent where they came from.
-Strict Immigration Policy which insures that only the ''right'' people get into the country.
-Limited Military Spending.
-Government doesn't have any control over schools.(No national standardized tests etc etc)
-License to vote or a complete abolishion of Democracy
-Death Sentences for rapists and child molesters
-Few bigger prisons as oppose to a lot of small ones.
-

Moral Issues:
- All drugs legalized.
- Legalized Prostitution
- No Religious Education taught in schools.
- No religious symbols of any kind in schools.

Foreign Issues:

Non-interventionist.

[slybaldguy]

You're a libertarian/minarchist.

[The Immortal Goon]

You're a communist. Don't question it, just do everything I say and think everything that I think

[SpaciousBox]

National Conservative Libertarian? It's such a horrible mix... I'd go with the communism to be honest. Goon can be very persuasive. His re-education camps can be even more so. I had a lovely time with the rainbows, sunshine, and free ice cream. Vote communist.

[Odyssey]

National Conservative Libertarian? It's such a horrible mix... I'd go with the communism to be honest. Goon can be very persuasive. His re-education camps can be even more so. I had a lovely time with the rainbows, sunshine, and free ice cream. Vote communist.

Communism? With privatized Schooling privatized healthcare?

[The Immortal Goon]

It's not actually communism. I just answer all of these threads that way. If youre going to ask me what you think about stuff, I'm going to tell you that you might as well just agree with everything I say.

[SpaciousBox]

I was attempting to play on Goon's answer, Odyssey. I'm joking, you are not a communist by any stretch of the imagination.

I stick with my first answer: National Conservative Libertarian. I could very easily see an ideology like yours becoming mainstream within the next 50 years. That thought alone is quite scary.

[Odyssey]

Yes, I re-read everything again and I was able to see what you guys did .

Why do you think its scary? Wouldn't you, as a liberal, want people to experience a bit of freedom?

[SpaciousBox]

I am a liberal of the left. Privatisation of everything would simply implement a heavily caste based class system where those with money succeed and those without would be born into lives of predetermined failure. It would be like today, but much much worse. Economic freedom usually leads to social oppression. Not that I am expecting you to agree with me, of course! There are plenty of people on this forum who share your views about giving everything to the markets, so your certainly not alone.

[Technology]

National Conservative Libertarianism AKA Teapartyism AKA the worst thing that ever happened to libertarianism.

[Odyssey]

I am a liberal of the left. Privatisation of everything would simply implement a heavily caste based class system where those with money succeed and those without would be born into lives of predetermined failure. It would be like today, but much much worse. Economic freedom usually leads to social oppression. Not that I am expecting you to agree with me, of course! There are plenty of people on this forum who share your views about giving everything to the markets, so your certainly not alone.

Code: Select allPrivatisation of everything would simply implement a heavily caste based class system where those with money succeed and those without would be born into lives of predetermined failure.

False. Everyone has a talent/knowledge/ability of some sort that others don't. I was born into a working class family, I am by no means a rich bourgeois. There is nothing wrong with their being the upper class the middle class and the working class as long as the working class has the ability to climb that little social ladder. By lack of government activity, in terms of the market, this is exactly what will happen. A working class man will be able to use one of his talents. It is ridiculous that in a free country, I cannot open a little hotdog table and sell hotdogs on my own private property if I feel like it.

Economic freedom usually leads to social oppression

This is because of greed. There are many aspects of Marxism that do not consider human nature at all. Social oppression can occur in any system in my opinion.

Not that I am expecting you to agree with me, of course! There are plenty of people on this forum who share your views about giving everything to the markets, so your certainly not alone.

I understand but the point of me being on this forum is to understand where other people are coming from. If i find something better, I will gladly switch my ideology. I can tell you now that If there was a communist revolution which results in complete Communism under Marx's terms, I would gladly take part in it. Not because I think that communism is perfect, but because I feel like there is a need for change.

National Conservative Libertarianism AKA Teapartyism AKA the worst thing that ever happened to libertarianism.

From what I am reading, the tea party is all about lowering the taxes. Although I agree with it, I wouldnt call it a priority.

[Cromwell]

I wouldn't usually attempt to argue on topics like these (which are more about establishing your own beliefs than having them challenged) but I, quite frankly, cannot square anything you're saying with 'private schooling'. We develop our skills and abilities through our education; children from low-income backgrounds would not 'climb that little social ladder' because their education, within a system such as the one you advocate, would be either low or non-existent.

Hearing the meritocratic argument, time and time again, leaves me with less and less understanding of where people like you are coming from. Allowing a person's education (and, thereby, job prospects) to be casually linked to the successes of their parents is anti-meritocratic.

[Odyssey]

I wouldn't usually attempt to argue on topics like these (which are more about establishing your own beliefs than having them challenged) but I, quite frankly, cannot square anything you're saying with 'private schooling'. We develop our skills and abilities through our education; children from low-income backgrounds would not 'climb that little social ladder' because their education, within a system such as the one you advocate, would be either low or non-existent.

Hearing the meritocratic argument, time and time again, leaves me with less and less understanding of where people like you are coming from. Allowing a person's education (and, thereby, job prospects) to be casually linked to the successes of their parents is anti-meritocratic.

We develop our skills and abilities through our education

I would consider this false. I am currently a student. I go to school and I'm currently an International Marketing major. For my own sake, at home, i study: Politics, History and Philosophy. I do it all on my own by researching, noting things down thinking and reading.

I always fail to see how people view education and healthcare as free. The fact of the matter is that nothing is free. You pay for everything. Under the system which im talking about, instead of paying for other peoples' education and healthcare, you would simply pay for your own. I am currently working my back side off to be able to stay in school because my family, sadly, cannot afford to pay for my school bills, I have to pay for everything myself.

PS: I just assumed that you were talking about formal education

[Istanbuller]

Somewhere between libertarianism and American conservatism if you are from the US. If you are British, then you are basically a Tory. If you are from the continental Europe or any other place, you are pro- American. The labels change according to your nationality.

[Cromwell]

I would consider this false. I am currently a student. I go to school and I'm currently an International Marketing major. For my own sake, at home, i study: Politics, History and Philosophy. I do it all on my own by researching, noting things down thinking and reading.

I always fail to see how people view education and healthcare as free. The fact of the matter is that nothing is free. You pay for everything. Under the system which im talking about, instead of paying for other peoples' education and healthcare, you would simply pay for your own. I am currently working my back side off to be able to stay in school because my family, sadly, cannot afford to pay for my school bills, I have to pay for everything myself.

PS: I just assumed that you were talking about formal education

First, you need resources in order to study (whether at home or at school); the better the resources, the better the education. This plainly true, otherwise nobody would pay for their children to be privately educated.

Second, I didn't say that education was free; I am saying that, in order to establish a meritocracy, all children should have the same level of opportunity in terms of their education. The moment you privatise education, by the nature of the market, you make higher levels of education (better tutoring, better resources etcetera) dependent upon the parental income level of those receiving education.

Meritocracy, also, is not achieved through exceptionalism; if most children from rich backgrounds receive good education but only the exceptional few children of poor backgrounds (who can work for that education) receive the same, then you are still, unnecessarily, disadvantaging the latter.

Also, whilst I wouldn't normal play the game of throwing up exceptions, you've seen fit to use your personal experience as some kind of practical proof. Well then, what if someone is unfit for work (through disability, perhaps)? Or, what if, as is often the case in working class families, an older sibling has to stay at home to help their parents? Or, what if the only work someone could find in order to pay for education is labour intensive and affects their ability to focus in class?

In all those cases, you have tied their fate, regardless of their ability, to the class system; there is no meritocracy there because the same restrictions do not apply to children from rich backgrounds. In the first and third instance, they could have their education paid for parents and, in the second, they could hire a professional carer or servant.

[Odyssey]

Somewhere between libertarianism and American conservatism if you are from the US. If you are British, then you are basically a Tory. If you are from the continental Europe or any other place, you are pro- American. The labels change according to your nationality.

I see that I'm getting a lot of people saying that I am an American Conservative. Given the opportunity, i will just state a number of things.


I am for a small non invasive government.
I am against national defense focused on protection and fight against terrorism etc.
I believe that religion should be kept private.
Pro Abortion.
Just for the record, I am also agnostic.

[Odyssey]

Second, I didn't say that education was free; I am saying that, in order to establish a meritocracy, all children should have the same level of opportunity in terms of their education. The moment you privatise education, by the nature of the market, you make higher levels of education (better tutoring, better resources etcetera) dependent upon the parental income level of those receiving education.

Meritocracy, also, is not achieved through exceptionalism; if most children from rich backgrounds receive good education but only the exceptional few children of poor backgrounds (who can work for that education) receive the same, then you are still, unnecessarily, disadvantaging the latter.

Also, whilst I wouldn't normal play the game of throwing up exceptions, you've seen fit to use your personal experience as some kind of practical proof. Well then, what if someone is unfit for work (through disability, perhaps)? Or, what if, as is often the case in working class families, an older sibling has to stay at home to help their parents? Or, what if the only work someone could find in order to pay for education is labour intensive and affects their ability to focus in class?

In all those cases, you have tied their fate, regardless of their ability, to the class system; there is no meritocracy there because the same restrictions do not apply to children from rich backgrounds. In the first and third instance, they could have their education paid for parents and, in the second, they could hire a professional carer or servant.[/quote]

First, you need resources in order to study (whether at home or at school); the better the resources, the better the education. This plainly true, otherwise nobody would pay for their children to be privately educated.

We live in times where an amazing book about a certain issue/ideology can be bough for below 10$ in a used book store. I bought the Communist Manifesto for 12$. As well as that the internet allowed me to download a full set of classes from the university of Yale for absolutely free. In this day in age, resources are absolutely everywhere.

Well then, what if someone is unfit for work (through disability, perhaps)?

In this case why would he need the education. Would it be fair to say that majority go to school in order to secure a better job in the future? If not, then why not study at home for yourself? Besides, in this case there are the student loans.

Or, what if, as is often the case in working class families, an older sibling has to stay at home to help their parents?

In this case he cannot go to school because he has to stay at home and mind his parents, right? Besides, you state that this is common among working class families. I have yet to experience a family like this. I have lived in three different countries on two different continents and I have yet to see a family like this. I dont think this common, in fact I would argue that this is quite rare, but yes indeed, it can happen.

Or, what if the only work someone could find in order to pay for education is labour intensive and affects their ability to focus in class?

In this case, under my system, he could invest 500$ in a cart from which he could sell sandwiches along the side of the road beside or inside the local business park. (Just one of many ideas).

[Cromwell]

We live in times where an amazing book about a certain issue/ideology can be bough for below 10$ in a used book store. I bought the Communist Manifesto for 12$. As well as that the internet allowed me to download a full set of classes from the university of Yale for absolutely free. In this day in age, resources are absolutely everywhere.

That's entirely irrelevant. Money is money; £10 might not be much to someone, it might, to someone else, be a major investment compared with a decent meal.

As for the rest of your response it's based around an assessment of human existence that I cannot subscribe to. As a socialist, I wish for all people to realise their full potential. You, however, are happy to say that so long as everyone can make a basic cost-benefit analysis then it doesn't matter how horrid their lives are.

The fact is, the richer you are the more likely your children are to get better jobs and secure better incomes; that's not a meritocracy, don't pretend it is.

[SpaciousBox]

Hey Odyssey. I am very pleased to hear you would switch your position if convinced. I would probably do the same. I am however, not a Marxist. I am a left wing liberal, something of a non-market Social Democrat if that helps. Personally, I don't believe communism can ever arise in the manner to which Marx dictated - it is pretty much that alone that halts me from drifting any further left.

I am currently a student. I go to school and I'm currently an International Marketing major. For my own sake, at home, i study: Politics, History and Philosophy. I do it all on my own by researching, noting things down thinking and reading.

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the point, though. You can go to uni and study because you went to good enough school - something that could only happen under state provision! If the entire education sector was privatised then tutoring would come down to peoples ability to pay, meaning your working class parents would not be able to afford to educate you to a standard that would allow you access to higher education. You need to follow your views through to their natural conclusion: Privatisation means schools no longer have funding, so where do they get it from? They get it from the parents of children at the school. Parents who can pay a lot, will assist the growth of high-standard private education that can afford better teachers, equipment, facilities, text books, etc. The schools in poorer areas will end up with far less capable - or even downright bad - teachers, and a serious lack of equipment. This will mean that smart children in poor areas will never get the chance to develop, and will learn far far less due to the bad teachers. Add in everything we presently know about the formation of neural pathways in relation to brain development, and you are effectively telling these children that they cannot fulfil their full potential based entirely on their parents income.

On the other hand, the high paying students will receive top notch education that will facilitate superior learning and brain development. They will find themselves more likely to go on to higher education, and more likely to therefore take superior jobs that gain them superior funds. This is how class systems developed, it is also how feudal systems arise, as a natural widening of the equality gap always follows (see the develop of the United States compared to other nations, for example). I don't think anyone here would pretend that state-funded education or healthcare is free. But I think we would argue that the community wallet maintains some form of equality of opportunity (even if it is still pretty bad). I presently live and work in a very working class community. The state schools around here are terrible, meaning very few pupils ever reach their full potential as bad schools do not get the chance to employ good teachers. Due to this, the area doesn't find any investment, as most business groups would rather employ people elsewhere. This creates further poverty, and destroys the work ethic in a community. Children grow up with limited visions of what they can accomplish - something that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is sickening.

Allowing a person's education (and, thereby, job prospects) to be casually linked to the successes of their parents is anti-meritocratic

This. Very much this. As liberals we should be utterly against it also, as it would effectively strip people of their liberty at birth.

[Rei Murasame]

You have three different systemic contradictions showing in your stances:

-Immigrants should respect the traditions and religion of the country and not try to change it. Those who do shall be sent where they came from.

Sent back by who? Assuming that businesses have the ability to hire and fire whoever they want without interference, and given that those same people will be able to commandeer the state, businesses are not going to lobby to raise bills that empower the state to kick out the very same people who they want to hire.

- No Religious Education taught in schools.

But you also said that the government should not have any control over schools. A government that doesn't have the institutional framework for deciding on a national curriculum or national testing regimen, will also by its very nature be unable to prevent wealthy people from opening private schools that have a religious curriculum.

-Limited Government which deals only with Immigration, Military (limited) and Foreign Affairs

This 'limited government' will basically be used to promote mass migration, interventions to secure strategic chokepoints and a monopoly on natural resources. Nothing in your plan says anything about labour organisations, so I assume that they have no voice at the table there. Furthermore, your removal of the ability to even vote, would mean that the government wouldn't even have to pretend that any of those actions are for 'the nation'.

It's like putting a security-state neoliberal like Muhammad Zia ul-Haq in charge of forming and running a government, and then adding the stipulation, "Don't allow fundamentalists to take over the rural areas, don't allow mass migrations of poor workers, and don't wage wars all the time against your neighbours". They will actually do all three of those things. The retreat of the state from the role of salvation and social justice, opens up a vacuum that results in your country turning into Pakistan.

It's empirically demonstrated by the fact that Pakistan is what it is. As soon as I read your opening post, I immediately thought of 1980s Pakistan. Which inevitably turned into the disaster that is 2014 Pakistan through a rapid 30 year slide into madness that began there literally immediately from the time that Zia ul-Haq got into power.