indexer: notabug.io
all comments

[] -0 points

In some ways I think so. Because once one rejects violence as a morally valid proposition, everything else one accepts is merely a suggestion.

A christian anarchist is not imposing theocracy upon others. An atheist technocrat is.

On the other hand, I still think beliefs beyond violence can be dangerous. Its just the danger now requires voluntary participation. I can freely give you poison, killing you without any force. Beliefs are still dangerous beyond violent imposition.

[]unhinged_redditor -0 points

People have aversion to violence, but feel relatively safe about giving other people, even other nations, monopoly of violence over them.

I feel so weird writing about it.

[] -0 points

good answer

[] -0 points

An atheist technocrat is.

That doesn't follow.

[]Selene -0 points

Authoritarianism comes with trust in the government. Different agencies have different reputations. Nasa is great. EPA is fucking retarded. Police rock. FBI are traitors and perverts.

Education should be a primary goal, but liberals have completely wrecked it by turning into an indoctrination factory. It's funny because our education system is one of those things that levels the playing field for the impoverished. So much for that.

Anti-authoritarianism is only sane because how backward our goverment is.

Monopolies and the federal government are means of centralizing power that are supposed to keep each other in check. Trust in the free market comes with the expectation of a lack of corruption in antitrust enforcment. Willingness to abandon one in favor of the other is mental illness in action.

[] -0 points

Education should be a primary goal, but liberals have completely wrecked it by turning into an indoctrination factory

It has been worse.

The entire US education system spends most of it's existence on indoctrination. Mostly in making people dumb canon fodder rather than left or right.

[] -0 points

The stronger the democratic oversight, the more I'm down with giving the government powers.

[] -0 points

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. Absolute rights are absolute, and the rule of the mob doesn't change what is just.

[] -0 points

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner

That's entirely not what democracy is.

[]unhinged_redditor -0 points

There is a difference between what democracy means and should be, to what democracy potentially could become, and now is.

[] -0 points

Political labels mean almost nothing.

Ask me what I think about a candidate or an issue, and I'll be able to answer you.

Ask me if I'm left, right, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. and you're probably just trying to trap me.

[] -0 points

YOU LEFTIST!!!!!!!! LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

[] -0 points

"You said in 2015 you were a socialist, yet now you support the proposal to...."

Before you say words, you control them. After you say them, they control you.

[]go1dfish -0 points

I think it’s certainly the most important axis.

[] -0 points

Politics has 3 dimensions...

http://friesian.com/quiz.htm

[] -0 points

x axis = Economic Liberty y axis = Personal Liberty z axis = Political Liberty

[] -1 points

Libertarians seem pretty authoritarian honestly.

[] -0 points

How so? Which groups are less so? Are they more authoritarian in your opinion than Dems/Repubs?

[] -0 points

If you think so, and you're not just taking a few weird outliers as the norm, then you either don't understand libertarians, or don't understand the meaning of authoritarian.

π