Yet it is actually quite easy to summarize: I want local government to be the most powerful compared to state or global government. It does not really matter if the local governments are socialist, free markets, hyper racist or multicultural. Every Community (thinking medium city size per commune) should independently decide how much socialism and immigration they want.
art by @friendlymoose
To talk a little about how I got there and why I think it is the ultimate solution: I am originally a socialist, not one of those "we need more welfare" guys, but more one of those who thinks the state should play a more active and smart role in todays society, also we need to make things way more electable since we now have the technology for that.
I think I never really wanted a full abolishment of all free markets and while I was always a little anarcho and anti-immigration, Steemit really pushed me into the right wing libertarian camp where I dont really want taxes but people putting their money voluntarily together to have social structures. It was the Libertarians who always talked about only local government being necessary so it influenced me a lot actually.
No Nazi no more
I was never really a racist. Sure there are some cultures I get along with good and others I don't. But I think National Socialism has gotten a really bad reputation due to the whole WW2 and killing the Jews debacle. And yes National socialism invites and tolerates racism. I see nothing wrong with racism personally as long as you don't use it to justify violence of any form.
I should clarify why I think you should be anti-immigration as a socialist: Immigration is only needed if you have a serious shortage of workforce, but with an unemployment of 10% you are just creating pressure for the native workforce. Ergo being pro immigration means being anti-worker, ergo @antisocialist. When the radical left party "Die Linke" started here in Germany they were anti-immigration and anti-EU...
Globalism vs Nationalism vs Minarchism?
I sympathize with a lot of national movements like Donald Trump, because nationalism is always better than globalism. Beware of anybody talking about "Workers of the world unite". Globalist Socialism has been rightfully identified by the right as an enemy to humankind.
Still calling yourself a National Socialist is not a great conversation starter and I much prefer to break it down like I did above. Not sure if my ideology really has a name at this point, I guess it is Minarchism maybe?
What are your political believes?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Good question. I like to answer:
I think "politician" shouldn't be a profession nor a full-time job. Also, shifts should change on a basis with which people are comfortable with if they chose to opt out of an official part-time governing job.
Actually, a decentralized system would work out for itself what local people need for making a living in terms of food production, shelter and other needs to trade with (other decentralized and locally run enterprises). Welfare should then reduce itself to an acute state of being in need for some cash but not subsidizing all of the needs of humans. I am more for a mixture both in professions and poly-techniques regarding lifestyles.
The better educated people are in different professions the better it is for the whole community. A carpenter could be very good at desktop-affairs as well as with repairing electrical stuff. He also could be good with children and so on and so forth. People are happy when they can engage in different tasks and they have more than one particular talent when they have time for it.
Governments on a central basis are not needed, they are more of a problem than a solution. The current complexity in terms of laws and regulations is the biggest issue for free enterprises and independent and innovative human activities, in particular when it comes to housing, small businesses, as they are treated in the same way as big companies. That's wrong.
In the past I was all for welfare and a UBI but now I changed my mind and think a basic income is only seen as necessary cause we have consumerism based societies on a grand scale. I am all for scaling down but still the world should stay open for travelers and story tellers from foreign places, I would like to see more of those nomads and come into touch with them. If I would have a bigger place I would like to invite them for couch surfing.
I did it once, when the other bedroom was free and it was a very refreshing and good experience. The farer away the people come from, the more interesting :)
Nobody should treat other humans like figures on a chess board. The system regulates itself best, the less humans interfere. Free traveling and choosing whatever continent and place one likes is what I opt for. The huge masses of refuges and the governments who then shuffle those poor people around like they were their property disgusts me beyond words. I work with refugees a lot and I have both horrible and impressive stories collected.
Even though I am a strong border person, I share this sentiment. I also think their is a huge difference in visiting other countries and migrating to other countries. Still I wouldn't force a community to open up for visitors.
I generally like having laws at least basic ones, but I totally agree that is it criminal how much you need to read/understand to know the law.
My main point in getting the government smaller is (1) you can influence your government as a single person and (2) you have thousands of different local governments to choose from, maybe not all will let you live in their system, but that will most likely depend on the value you can offer the community.
Also I think UBI is very different from Welfare, but that's a whole nother topic ;), thanks for the engagement!
I agree. Why using force if it is enough to rely on sensible humans?
The community would know and decide every single case by themselves. It's impossible to generalize cases. Every migrant has his own story, skills and weaknesses. The friendlier he is welcomed the more he/she would be willing to give back what he received. Migration does not happen easily and in fact, people prefer to stay where they were rooted and raised, talking their own language and getting used to traditions and habits. Only adventurers and risk minded people like to change their life in terms of lifestyle, beliefs and habits. There would be no masses on the run if not for reasons of war and oppression. So, from this imagined scenario communities wouldn't have to deal with too great numbers of migrants, if you ask me. And no force needed. Foreigners, in decent numbers, always enrich a community exactly by their alieness and different thinking and history. It's the differences which makes it interesting, not the similarities.
For the sake of exaggeration - it is a good stylistic device - I would throw the thesis into the room that laws are not necessary at all. Laws have the great disadvantage that they have to control compliance by a large administration and executive, since they have to prove their legitimacy by doing so. I am in favour of unwritten rules that are child's play for everyone to understand and have always understood. Doing violence to no one, taking advantage of no one, deliberately lying to no one, and so on. Such a set of rules was and has always been part of human community, but for that you have to know each other and be in a local relationship with each other. Where there is a lack of relationship, there seems to be a need for these laws, but I would argue that it was the laws that made this lack of relationship possible in the first place. Laws give birth to lawbreakers, and legislation would make itself absurd if there were no intervention by force. In truth, laws are almost directly dependent on law-breaking acts, because the actors involved earn their bread through them. Separation of powers still remains violence, even if it is divided. From my point of view, this is a persistent fairy tale, that violence, even when split, is something other than violence. The truth is in the word, but apparently people like to ignore that.
It is a question of the attitude of the individual, how a community of people regulates itself. From my point of view, it regulates itself organically, rather indirectly, through observation and consideration by the individual of what is needed or necessary, if no one has to fear that controlling external powers will constantly intervene.
Yeah, UBI could be seen as a bridge solution to eventually get rid of itself :) I see it more of an investment in making oneself independent from central powers to be more in relationship to local ones.
Thanks for engaging with me.
that is actually a fundamental flaw in my ideology, since there is the dilemma of staying were you are born and raised or migrating to a community with more like minded people. But at least having this opportunity instead of having different flavors of Neoliberalism all around the world would be a huge improvement in my opinion.
I think letting the communities decide who they want to integrate into their society would make it much more feasible to make immigration a case by case thing. It would also let people sort out who is coming because they actually flee from tyranny and those who search for opportunity. Both are valid cases and might overlap from time to time but I think that you would agree that these two are very different kinds of migration.
I see where you are coming from. I am not a fan of Kants kategorischem Imperativ myself, meaning that you can judge the moral of an action in a generalized manner. Again I think judging everything case by case is the way to go. However I also like structure and well thought through systems. And yes I think humans have a basic understanding of what's right and wrong, but I think having a basic codex that the community agrees upon is necessary. It should be simple enough that every citizen knows it by heart though.
I think UBI brings relief from the existencial pressure that still lingers in our modern society. Nobody wants a community where people live and die in the streets. Also as an individual you can follow your dream career even if you only make 500€ per month.
That's unfortunatily another flaw of my Utopia. War never changes. The only way to prevent communities from using force against each other or even within themselves would require to force them to not use force, you see the dilemma....
Very good points. That reminds me on my thoughts that in the worst case, I would escape to my families house, where my brother lives. Merely the thought that I could choose this option relieves me, though I never may indeed have to take it. To be free to choose from the outset makes the huge difference. In case I'd be forced to leave my whereabouts i'd be difficult for me, as I already took root where I am right now. Weighing up the pros and cons one can afford during peace times. And as I said, most people prefer to stay where they are.
Life unfolds itself by the situation. If I were being forced to change my location I probably would be able to cope to a new situation in trying to make the best out of it. As long as it is not the case, I try to argue reasonably with what circumstances I have to deal with.
Speaking of force: I think there are some different kinds of definition, if the term is taken somewhat flexible. In this funny story, someone kindly provided me with, the "force", used for people who refuse to be part of a community, is not of active but of a passive nature. As not to give those stubborn characters food or shelter if they are unwilling to give their share to the people. If you ask me, only insane or very destroyed people would refuse to take part in such a communal life and are such a minority that it's actually not worth it to punish them actively.
So maybe this can be some alternative to the mentioned dilemma of yours :) at least, theoretically.
The basic codex you talk about, I think, is deeply ingrained in each and every one of us. We learn it as soon as we can talk with our parents as little children and accept those basics as truth, if we are not distorted too much .
Like mindedness seems to be a bit of a problem, for already, the two of us may be seen in their thoughts as "too radical" or "extreme". In my direct environment I only have one to two people thinking the same. Not enough to form a community, not even considering off grid lives.
Yes, I agree with your comment about the UBI. Why I am not actively supporting it any more is that I am sceptical towards governmental abuse of both the term and dependency on it. I don't think it would be unconditional but conditional. And here I am confusing myself :) LOL
War, ... sigh ... , is a topic which is so horrible to us that we tend not to think about it and see ourselves as innocent whether supporting it or not.
I think it is complicated with the term force, like @antisocialist says many would like to reject using force, however everybody is using force if they want to or not. If you smile at somebody, you force the other person to smile back, at least if that person has any social bond with you. Silly example, but force is in many of our actions even though we might not admit it at first. Maybe George Lucas was actually on to something :D.
I think a written out Codex is still good because it represents the Schnittmenge of the values the members of the community have learned since their early childhood. But I have to disagree with you, I think those basic values can differ due to circumstances. A farmer in North Korea, a young Orphan in Rio, a middle aged man in the countryside of Brazil and Barron Trump have totally different outlooks on life, treat people differently, have different values that they see as cornerstones of their lives. That doesn't mean these 4 won't agree on anything, but more that the local customs are vastly different and I would argue the same for morale compasses.
The major thing about UBI is to keep it as simple as possible, the only thing that should be required is citizenship and how citizenship is aquired is exactly the thing I want to leave up to the City/Commune and not the state.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
hmm ...
If they differ significantly, they are no longer very basic principles. I'll also give a funny example: an extraterrestrial life form would probably not be able to do anything with such principles. But earthly human beings, i.e. people living in the present, share these principles, otherwise you would hardly be able to make each other understood. In no country in the world would someone kill you or seriously injure you, or steal from you, cheat you, while you were simply moving along your way, without getting the impression that he was doing something unethical. The perpetrator would know that he was doing something wrong to you and such need not be a written script but has been passed down through generations of evolutionary cultural influence on each other.
My question to you would therefore be, if one knows about these basic principles (even if they differ slightly from each other), why does something have to be put into direct text as an intersection, when it could quite easily also be stated in the oral hearing and on this basis even pick up the individual participants according to their individual situation? Unless there was a bureaucratic superstructure (i.e. laws and the executive) between the two of you?
Especially since we do not need to forget that the writing down of what one accepts as moral principles is very well represented in countless novels, observational records, in art and poetry. Those who know the traditions, fairy tales and anecdotes of their own culture know quite well about the code. That said, I have nothing against contracts that record what has been agreed upon as a memory aid, but should not be used to find and abuse loopholes in the passages. Unfortunately, written texts are extremely well suited to such abuse and make our existence infinitely complex.
Would you say that it makes sense that someone from another culture who has not yet assimilated himself should not first read and hear the anecdotes, stories and traditions of incidents, so that he can then at some point better understand the culture into which he has - mind you - voluntarily placed himself?
Agreed. I see it the same way.
Yes, if you look at it that way, one cannot avoid being forceful.
Please enlighten me, what was George Lucas up to?
I have to agree with your insight. Local governments should have greater power than state or national groups. However, it's difficult to change such a state of society without great pains inflicted upon the populace. Unfortunately, I don't have solutions to this dilemma.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think the biggest pain would be caused for international companies and that's right where I want the pain ;)
My own beliefs parallel yours in many ways... much smaller, more local government. You're right about all the particulars. Bigger is more useless, more corrupt. We really do need to get away from the plan unfolding around us... this Great Reset. Horrible stuff, I see it playing out in real time.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I am a (classical) liberally thinking person.
https://peakd.com/politics/@zuerich/are-you-left-right-socialist-liberal
https://peakd.com/deutsch/@zuerich/voluntarismus
I tend to say I don't like classical liberalism because I associate British Parlamentarism with it which is in my opinion a failed interpretation of Democracy. I tend to agree with many of the standpoints of classical Liberalism when it comes to debate, but I don't trust these people.
Anarchy is fine and dandy, especially when you still can have somewhat of a hierarchical structure within it. I believe hierarchy in some context and to some degree is valuable, however in a modern world it becomes less and less needed. I think it is fair that Anarchy doesn't have rules or rulers, but laws and leaders.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Put me down as anti rule by force.
I don't care what others do, as long as they don't come at me/others with force.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
I know, the holy NAP and all that stuff.
It is a decent cornerstone but not a finished world view in my opinion.
Yes, the final battle against those that will kill to maintain their power has not yet played out.
Too many folks still lick boots.
Once that happens, I wouldn't want to be someone that harms another, or controls them through force and fear.
But you would want to lead your community into a better tomorrow and inspire the people around you to follow your actions, don't you? Common there is a little bit of a dictator in all of us ;D
Power corrupts the corruptible absolutely.
Better if the community is capable of surviving without leaders, iyam.
I have no interests in leading, at all.
There was that time, but I've learned better since.