Also, hello.

[Kassad]

The easiest way to say it is "Hi, I'm Corey." Basically, I'm 17 and from Ohio (United States). I started taking an interest in government and economics when I was around 14, but it never developed into rational thinking until early 2007. I was greatly enticed by the Ron Paul campaign, as on a social scale, it is a great thing. I began studying Austrian Economics (hate me yet?) and as time progressed, I started to observe that however nice the ideas of low taxes, limited spending and small government seem, when observed in its true form of laissez-faire capitalism, we see the destruction of liberty, enslavement through the wage and corporate society, destruction of the environment and the disregard for resources. It was about this time that I began getting past the idea that "Liberals are for high taxes/big government/anarchy", since those generalizations are very false. I began to realize that small government can be achieved and it can still serve the people, the heart of society and all prosperity.

And here I am! I am still very new to the movement. I won't call myself a communist or a socialist, but feel free to convince me otherwise. :lol:

It's very nice to be here.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm fairly new to the whole Communist thing myself, but I love the ideas. Perhaps we can learn together? btw, i'm 17 also and live in Canada! :D

[revolution inaction]

Hi Kissad



It was about this time that I began getting past the idea that "Liberals are for high taxes/big government/anarchy", since those generalizations are very false.

What's wrong with anarchy? :blackA:
I'm not sure what you mean by liberals, its not the same as having left wing politics.




I began to realize that small government can be achieved and it can still serve the people, the heart of society and all prosperity.



I have to disagree with that, I don't think any government can serve the people.
Instead people need to need to form organisations which they control directly, and use them to run society.

[JimmyJazz]

Welcome, I started out as a right-wing libertarian too.

[Kassad]

Hi Kissad


What's wrong with anarchy? :blackA:
I'm not sure what you mean by liberals, its not the same as having left wing politics.

I'm merely referring to American-esque stereotypes. Despite their differences in meaning, many will interpret these ideals incorrectly. I was referring to the American liberal, which is normally associated with left-wing (in a loose sense of the word) policies.


I have to disagree with that, I don't think any government can serve the people.
Instead people need to need to form organisations which they control directly, and use them to run society.

I can't say I agree, but that's why I'm here. To learn that I might be incorrect. :)
Regardless, my current opinions dictate me to believe that a small government, on a very local scale, run by the people that serves their needs, is necessary.

[revolution inaction]

I'm merely referring to American-esque stereotypes. Despite their differences in meaning, many will interpret these ideals incorrectly. I was referring to the American liberal, which is normally associated with left-wing (in a loose sense of the word) policies.

I thought you where, I think that liberal is normally used to mean the left wing of mainstream politics, which is it self right wing.



Regardless, my current opinions dictate me to believe that a small government, on a very local scale, run by the people that serves their needs, is necessary.
This is a contradiction, a government cant be run by the people, if you have an organisation run by the people to server there needs it is not an government.
A government rules over people.

[Kassad]

Is a group of workers attempting to establish laws and regulations to maintain society considered a government to you?

[#FF0000]

Is a group of workers attempting to establish laws and regulations to maintain society considered a government to you?

According to anarchists, these three things constitute a state or "government"

1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.

So, no. What you described is not necessarily a government to Anarchists.

[Kassad]

Well, maybe you can convince me otherwise, but even a small group of workers attempting to make decisions on laws and issues constitutes a government to me. A very small government, but a government.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Welcome, Kassad. I sent you this same message via your profile link, but in case you get it here first - was your name influenced by Dan Simmon's Hyperion?

I actually come from a similar background. I was lured into the Austrian school, but then I realized while some aspects may be correct, there are fatal flaws - such as the assumption that ALL government activity beyond enforcement of property rights is bad (even to the point that creating the highway system was seen as the cause for economic disaster :rolleyes:), and that individuals are somehow separate social beings who can acquire property without any regard for others. Right-libertarians also tend to be very weak on vital social movements like feminism, racial equality, and sexual minority protection.

If you're interested, I would look into mutualism to bridge the gap into the Left. It's a particular form of socialism called "free market socialism."


Mutualism is a form of free market socialism. The French philosopher Pierre Proudhon is attributed with defining the philosophy. Kevin Carson is now seen as the leading theorist, at least on the internet: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/


Being related to left-libertarianism and socialism, mutualists are very adament about defense of the labor movement, feminism, racial equality, reproductive rights, multi-culturalism, transgenderism, and acceptance of sexual minorities. Mutualists are usually very critical of organized religion, existing corporations, and intellectual property as well. Although we often reach out to anarcho-individualists and anarcho-communists as allies, we define capitalism more along the traditional "corporatist" understanding, and we do not think communism can be imposed. We also don't believe a post-state market - if it even exists - will look similar to what people see today: we envision most of the world running by individual entrepreneurs, cooperatives, collectivist, and communist associations, with some wage labor where someone is truly in use and occupancy of their possessions.

And lastly, mutualists have a different view of property than capitalists. We don't follow the "natural rights" line of thinking, as seen in Rothbard. If land is not being utilized for a long time, or if land is being used for exploitive purposes (like monopolizing on the only source of water for miles), we believe without a state people will use their reason to defend the squatter and users.

[Kassad]

Nope. My name came from a computer game I used to play.

Thank you for the reference. I'll definitely look into it.