My (and often very commonly seen online) political beliefs fall between two ideologies which seem very hypocritical at first. Because of this I wondered if there was a name for this ideology.
I basically comes down to close to Libertarian if we are talking about personal freedom, but almost Fascist/NatSoc when it comes to big business/outside threats.
Big corps now have more power than governments, but if you look at politics thought the perimeters set in the time when they didn't, you can only go big gov if you want to stop that. But that doesn't remove the motivation why you want to stop big corp at all, it just replaces it with big gov.
I don't mind if some idiot wants to say dumb shit about politics and say that Marx was right. I DO care if PayPal or my bank can make me homeless if I openly disagree.
I'm looking for a name for an ideology where peoples personal rights are protected from big gov AND big corp. Traditional left/right ideas only protect against one, and often (if not always) make the other threat even bigger. (AnCap makes PayPal even more powerful, any form of statism makes the gov n more powerful.
I'm looking for something where the gov is small, but ruthlessly shuts down monopolies (domestic threats against citizens) or outside threats like terrorism.
In practise this would end up like early days of the USA but this time they shut down the big monopolies that fucked it all up.
No clearly defined ideology that I know of fights for personal liberty and safety from big gov AND big corp.
>only caring about money and business That would be Judaism.
Robert Hill
Which in the current day and age makes either government or big corp tyrannical. I don't want any of them to hold power over me.
Landon Bennett
Did you even read it? I don't want it to end up like AnCap because that would give (((them))) too much power.
Gabriel Morgan
Its pretty much 1960s hippie-thoughts mixed with an anti-government militia.
See why I'm struggling here...?
Nicholas Fisher
It depends on what the laws are. If the laws restrict the government and the corporations, then implementing the laws will work. Otherwise you just have basically war lords and gangs that operate with no counterbalance, just like niggers do in Africa.
Civilization has always been based on developing a set of rules for the game and playing by them.
Jackson Gonzalez
Right, but when big gov or big corp gets too powerful, they just change the laws into either a AnCap shithole for their profits, or a Soviet police-state for their power-needs.
Just having a system that makes law is not enough.
Aiden Martinez
Social nationalism?
James Ortiz
No, for it to bring freedom you need capitalism, not socialism.
But not unrestrained capitalism...also not too many ways to restrain it...
It's very hypocritical, I know. but I'm trying to work something out that isnt based around choosing the lesser evil.
Parker Adams
That's the consequence of the misapplication of law. Mistakes always happen but the question is how to recover from them.
You can organize outside of the law. This works to some extent, at least for upsetting the status quo. The French Revolution is a great example of this. But the longer-term effects don't last without a better system of law to implement. The French Revolution is another great example of this.
The Bolshevik Revolution is even better -- out of the frying pan and in to the fire.
James Murphy
This is why ideologies are stupid. They just create more sheep who can't think for themselves and only subscribe to a specific list of beliefs.
Zachary Wright
t. centrist
Aiden Anderson
To be fair the socialism in national socialism and regular socialism are two different things. They just share the same name for some reason. National socialism still encourages freedom and capitalism. It's just restricted is certain ways.
Michael Davis
What could work is:
- Big government, but only has jurisdiction over national security and the protection of rights.
- Armed population
- Military separate from the government (like in Turkey) so they can overthrow the gov when they spin out of control and start labeling everything "a matter of national security".
- Military has to be 60% militia-based, sole purpose is to defend the population from outside threats, can't instigate violence outward. Militia is to protect people from gov/big corp, to ensure the rights of the people. (defending protests, stopping corps who abuse power etc.)
- Very democratic, no 51% mob rule.
- Flat tax which cannot be changed. (progressive tax systems promote mob rule)
Anyone thinks of some things to add? I'm just throwing some out, this isn't a fully thought-though school of thought.
Caleb Hughes
>t. centrist I'm actual a Right wing Libertarian. In an ideal society there would be a dictator who would ensure libertarian principles, but that'll never happen.
Levi Myers
>libertarian >dictator ok buddy. i can see why you don't like coherent ideologies
Owen Richardson
I don't say this to be smug or anything, but that sounds shockingly like the kind of thinking that went in to the US. If you're really serious about political philosophy, check out our federalist papers or Joel Skousen's the 5000 Year Leap or some other such coverage of the extensive debate that went in to trying to make something better than anything that had been tried before.
I would also look to success stories like in Scandinavia where their brands of socialism worked out great until they got invaded and failed to repel the invaders or to apply their own laws to them.
Hunter Mitchell
National Socialism is too far towards big gov imo. The restrictions are a too broad interpretation of "matter of national security". I don't think Jew-owned cornerstores are a threat to the country, while a white-owned monopoly is imo.
I don't want restriction based on political reasons, I just want it to protect the core rights of the people affected by the big corps.
Kevin Turner
That's why I said in an ideal society and that it'll never happen. It's the same reason communism will never work. It's contradictory to human nature and people will get drunk on power.
Ayden Martinez
yeah that was basically the early US. but kikes and niggers fucked it up. we need an ethnostate.
Dominic Russell
Big corps exist because of big government. The more regulations on the market, the more centralization has to occur. You would never ha e had the issue of Jewgle were it not for the State. There are far too many barriers of entry into the market that prevent monopolies from falling due to competition.
David Phillips
I know, I mentioned it before. The way the early USA was set up was great, but only the rich had power which caused monopolies to run freely and take over later. A rich oil man in Congress isn't gonna vote to cut up a oil company, but a regular dude who is denied oil because he voted for the other party is.
I don't think you have to be smug to say that, the USA was founded taking the good parts from pretty much all democratic experiments. The only problem with it was it put the (limited) power of government solely in the hands of the rich.
Caleb Lopez
The age of the robber Barron is a myth. You're misconflating the power of plutocrats (which use/expand the State for their financial needs) and economic entrepreneurs. If you're really interested in understanding why corporations get big, and how to kill them, check out From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy by Hans Hermann Hoppe and The Anatomy of The State by Rothbard
Cameron Evans
Anarchofascism
pic related
Xavier Diaz
True, but removing the power of government at this point would only increase the power of the companies like Google, because they are well established right now. And bizarrely rich.
Brandon Price
Not exactly. It was meant to have a complex system of balances of powers so that it wouldn't just be the rich and the powerful dictating everything. For instance state vs. federal government, grand juries, or the local sheriff being the most powerful man in town.
It is no surprise that these balances have been slowly eroded over time. Now the local community no longer controls the local schools, so all the children get force-fed communist lies. Also forced to have chemicals nobody understands stuffed down their throats and now even injected directly in to their bodies. And everybody thinks that's not just normal but good and necessary.
In order to have a working legal structure, it's not having so much case law that nobody can understand it while simultaneously saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. It's having and educated public who all understand the law and agree to live by it.
Nicholas Lewis
Will check both of those out, thanks.
The Robber Barron may have been a myth, but it surely laid the path for the shit we have today. One way or the other, it allowed corps to get way too big AND have power in government.
Caleb Morgan
You're struggling because you are describing actual democracy.
You are confused because you live in a cultural Marxist fascist regime that calls itself democracy.
See it's like the democratic republic of North Korea. (Not any of those things).
Get it? You need to call your government fascist cultural Marxism (which is what it truly is) to restore the true meaning of democracy.
Andrew White
No, if the State collapsed then the big corps would too. When corporations get too big, it becomes a logistics nightmare to run. The only way they can be propped up under such heavy overhead is by continued subsidies that unfairly sustain them at the expense of the people. Remove the State and these corporations will have no choice but to shrink or fragment.
Bentley Garcia
Check out, "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene M. Wormser for more on the robber barrons and how they meant well some of the time but used their inordinate wealth to completely destroy, corrupt, and control the world.
"Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins is another good example. "The Secret Team" by L. Fletcher Prouty. "The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carol Quigley. Many other also focus on this general theme.
Leo Scott
Right, but the State was the catalyst for that expansion, the corporations merely used the State to expand as well. The answer is to remove the State apparatus and force all actors to compete on the same market and with the same rules as everyone else.
Brandon Hernandez
They have grown to such a power that their biggest threat (competitors) can be shut down before they get big. With or without government.
They have grown to big that they themselves now prevent a free market, the government just helps them. Without gov help they would still have enough power to reign over the market.
John Phillips
Said corprorations would simply become the de facto state. It's what we see going on during the war against the modern Nation-State that has been going on almost since the fall of Rome. Webster Tarpley covers this well from back in his clear-headed days.
That's why you see transnational corporations attempting to rival state power, NGOs running the UN, etc.
Jordan Ortiz
This is very, VERY likely to be the case. Thanks to stating it so clearly.
Matthew Morris
Yeah, but who is gonna force them? The people? Not if they can make millions homeless in a second.
Juan Lopez
Benevolent A.I. Overlord
Oliver Fisher
Do you realize how ridiculously expensive it would be to shut down competition across the board when they have only their profits to work from, and not government subsidies or regulations with which to use to stomp them out? A company cannot persist if they must constantly work at a loss to destroy their competition. Their resource pools will inevitably shrink ad more and more people enter the market thanks to the drastically reduced cost of entry.
Kayden Perry
Nice Guy Natsoc >Kick out all the enemies of the state, niggers kikes etc... >Keep our guns and raise our kids to be patriotic >In times of peace democracy, in strife dictatorship >If Hitler does not step down we over throw with our guns n sheeeeit
Distributism >Liquidation of large corporate assets, distributed to the people through the government >Focus on growth of small mom and pop type businesses >Social focus on helping each other out >Degenerates driven off by the small community focused populations. >Small Central government to take charge in times of strife
Aaron Jones
>AnCap makes PayPal even more powerful nope, you dumb toothpaste
no one would trust any court (private or not) sentencing against natural rights (self and material ownership, together with non-agression towards those granting you the two formers) but with private courts, if you're unsatisfied with one, you have the option to subscribe protection from another
under ancapism, unfair courts would quickly lose their customers, an go out of business.
Jose Gutierrez
>Liquidation of large corporate assets, distributed to the people through the government This is what created the oligarchy of Russia. No thanks. I think it should be shared across the competitors, no costs, otherwise the richest would get it all.
Julian Long
>I basically comes down to close to Libertarian if we are talking about personal freedom, but almost Fascist/NatSoc when it comes to big business/outside threats. it's called "post-2016 mainstream left" + "antimonopoly"
On a serious note you've described something close to distributism
Anthony Smith
This is why I can't go full AnCap...
The idea of private courts and shopping for sentences you like is fucking dumb.
Ryder Robinson
Working at a loss is a non-issue when you have bank backstopping you with an endless supply of debt at its fingertips while you exert strategic global power.
It's called "me-ism". You care only about your own personal rights and interests. Everyone else can fuck off.
Adam Stewart
Banks which only have so much power because of the State. Remove the State and the banks will crumble. Also, fiat currency can only exist so long as there is a central bank.
Jace Watson
I never heard of that, looks promising. Will look in to it, thanks.
Wish the name didn't sounds so Communist desu.
Elijah Butler
So I take it you don't like Common Law or Natural Rights?
Easton Hill
>This is what created the oligarchy of Russia. Not exactly. Oligarchy was created through distribution of former state assets (privatization) in a very young and inexperienced capitalist country. Several fuck-ups in this procedure (some believed to be intentional, some not) have led to very quick concentration of wealth in hands of few power players.
Dominic Mitchell
Banks predate the modern nation-state. The state is traditionally in the best position due to its power to keep the banks in check. That's why for instance government-minted coins are trusted more than rounds from pick-your-favorite-private-mint.
It's when they get in to coin clipping and collusion with the banks that it goes wrong.
Jacob Ross
>t. Shadowrun
Nicholas Brown
No, if that were the case I would be AnCap and start a tyrannical militia.
Tyler Parker
communism
Aaron Lopez
Gay Bantz
Hunter Roberts
Yes it's called "Fucking-moronism"
Install an economic policy from 70 years ago ignoring 70 years of provable economic SCIENCE.
Continue to allow shitskins, druggies and women to vote for more handouts bringing your 1930's agricultural farmstead economic principles to a fucking halt and everyone starves.
Yeah you're a fucking genius.
Can I interest you in a nice harry potter book? Perhaps politics just isn't your thing
Landon Perez
I never said banks were made by the State. They only have so much power because of the State. Banking is just fine so long as it remains decentralized. Then banks are subjected to market forces. There was a time when there were thousands of banks in America. Then the Fed was born and the boom/bust cycle it produced centralized the market extremely.
Ethan Powell
They have to be written down and given very little room for interpretation to stop tyranny.
Giving interpretation more power than documents opens up a shitstorm of abuse-for-sale. I would just go to the court that would say "The right to privacy gives the filer of the suit the right to take your land *bangs hammer*"
Matthew Sanchez
Thanks for adding your vast amount of wisdom to the conversation. Glad you read all the posts and crafted that well-thought through reply.
Logan Johnson
Liberal.
Isaac Ortiz
Right. I was just saying that destroying the state wouldn't do much to stop the banks from going the usual warlord / gang / cartel given the power vacuum.
It's like Andrew Jackson. Yes, he routed the bankers. But he left a power vacuum that allowed the foreign money interests to run the boom and bust cycles to convince the public that they needed a new central bank.
Sort of like the power vacuum that we see happen when the US destroys a country ("nation building" is the official term) and then withdraws. Wow, more gangs and warlords. Imagine that. But think of the profit opportunity!
Cameron Jenkins
Nice quads
Not really. If courts had to compete, the courts that allowed fraudulent behavior would quickly lose support as people would be afraid that it would be used against them as they can use it against others. Courts that interpreted things fairly would see much more support than those that flew in the face if our rights. This system worked before under Kings and under Aristocratic rule, and it was only when the State centralized that authority that you started seeing massive government growth and the degradation of Law and Order
Tyler Rodriguez
How can foreign money interests control the boom/bust cycle when interest rates aren't set by a single entity or even a handful of them?
Henry Turner
- No rights for anyone working in government Their entire every day life is monitored. Limits corporate intervention Only the truly patriotic/trustworthy will be willing to serve They will be seen as the most honorable Americans
- 1 party system that is based on basic human progression Rules that guide the direction of government >preserve the freedom of the people >preserve the safety of the people >preserve the health of the people
- Every house should have a political voting system Policy should be guided by the people, not the politicians (Those people pass legislation every day and I've never given them the O.K.) Every vote should be sent to every household with mandatory voting systems installed The votes are tallied in real time, and the senators (if at all needed) vote accordingly
- Free or reduced cost of education and free direction of education Where the fuck is 25k per student per year going? What's the difference between college and grade schools? Football coaches are the highest paid staff >Teachers should be able to teach what they want >Students should be able to learn what they want
- Spend more money on defensive military than offensive There's no point throwing rocks at tanks
- Universal wage based on IQ Everyone gets food -> Lower crime rates Subsidize intelligence -> better technology (Eventually companies will turn to A.I. machines to do work, people are going to become virtually useless in the workforce)
- Every citizen should be required to have a gun, and be properly trained You're not going to rob a room full of gun owners
- Government or legally recognized guild for protecting inventors I've heard too many stories about people going missing after inventing revolutionary technology Greedy corporations halt our technological evolution
Dominic Taylor
Collusion. That's how international cartels work. In the case of the US, they saw it as the biggest threat to their power and profit base to not have control of it.
It's not very different from the colonial thinking of that day and age that saw most of the world as an untapped resource.
Brandon Brooks
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffen is a must-read for any American interested in banking and history btw. I wish that was the first book I'd ever read on the topic.
