What Is Your Political Affiliation?

Can someone tell me what the hell the guy is babbling about ?

Be more specific, there's a quote button for a reason.

Ad statelessness: renouncing your citizenship just because is not that easy and actually impossible in most countries. Steps have been undertaken in the past decades to limit the number of stateless people and people with multiple citizenships.

Even if you manage to become stateless, it doesn't necessarily mean you cease to be a permanent resident of the country, so you pay taxes all the same. Except now you can't vote and travel abroad.

Aren't there documents that allow you to travel abroad (probably one-way though) if you're stateless? Would that be impossible to get for someone who renounced their citizenship?

I'm not aware of it, but some countries may offer it. But even if, you fly away to a country B and then what?

Edit: yeah turns out there is a treaty on that. Ok, so best case scenario, you get a "stateless passport" and can travel.

But still, statelessness is a net loss. No actual advantages and lots of potential drawbacks. Better and often easier to get a citizenship in one of the Carribean tiny islands. You can literally, legally buy the citizenship for about $ 200k

Apply for asylum I suppose?  Yeah, I see your point. An American I know was recently forced to leave Norway because his residence permit expired.
You don't have to be brown or a Muslim to be unwanted.

Asylum for what reasons? Persecution by progreesive income tax?

If you're talking about me specifically, I guess I'd try "oppressive national obsession with winter sports". Someone at the immigration office ought to understand.

Rallix said:

Úlrflheðinn said:

Gonna be a tool and interject.

Gestricius said:

Right and wrong is very fuzzy, again, I do not believe in a opinionated innate truth but one backed up by facts and statistics.

Click to expand...

Rallix said:

Perhaps truth by itself was the wrong term. Your opinion of what the truth is, subject to the information you have, is all I was looking for.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in the word truth. 

It's a lovely word and an interesting concept that people like to throw around without any understanding of what would actually be needed to establish something as being true.

Although by the same virtue, I would argue that the word fact is another silly word. To establish anything as being a truth or a fact, is frankly something that we isn't possible in any meaningful way.

Another great addition to words that people use without really understanding is proof/proves (as in "this study proves that"...)

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in the concept of absolute truth. Every man has his own facts and truth. Refusing to use the word is simply a semantic distraction.
Facts change, truths become lies. One cannot truly achieve it perhaps, but does that mean we should not seek it?
Perfection is another such word. Should we not strive for it, knowing we won't get there?

Click to expand...

Nah, that's good enough for me (in that you recognize absolute truth is silly).

I mean even in research we strive for the same pipe dream, which is proving causation.

Harkon Haakonson said:

You're just think too hardcore of the scientific scene when you say these things, and in that case you're definitely right; but there's plenty of daily life situations that are true, and many things that are facts. It is true that I am posting this right now, a fact, actually.

Click to expand...

True that, but I like being edgy like that. 

Rallix if the government is interchangeable with large companies then why bother interchanging? What is the point? What are the benefits?
Would your companies be subject to competition? If so, who is to determine what fair play is and to ensure that competition is fair? What happens for example, if rival security companies come into conflict? Civil war?
Does your security company provide domestic security? If so, what happens when groups or individuals who aren't customers come into conflict? Are they ignored? What if this endangers the lives of paying customers who get caught up in the crossfire? Are children counted as customers only if their parents pay? How does this domestic security company gather information needed to combat terrorism?

Are the fire services replaced with a company? What happens if my neighbour is not a customer but I am, and their house catches fire? My property is at risk because theirs is, surely this company is now obligated to put their fire out, essentially meaning they leach off me.

Also don't mention government agencies that protect you from corporate, individual or natural harm. It's obvious they need to be abolished. Y'all.

pentagathus said:

Rallix if the government is interchangeable with large companies then why bother interchanging? What is the point? What are the benefits?
Would your companies be subject to competition? If so, who is to determine what fair play is and to ensure that competition is fair? What happens for example, if rival security companies come into conflict? Civil war?
Does your security company provide domestic security? If so, what happens when groups or individuals who aren't customers come into conflict? Are they ignored? What if this endangers the lives of paying customers who get caught up in the crossfire? Are children counted as customers only if their parents pay? How does this domestic security company gather information needed to combat terrorism?

Are the fire services replaced with a company? What happens if my neighbour is not a customer but I am, and their house catches fire? My property is at risk because theirs is, surely this company is now obligated to put their fire out, essentially meaning they leach off me.

Click to expand...

The government is not interchangeable in that its actions are unjust. One is wrong according to my philosophy, the other is not. The point is I don't like being extorted by a big gang, even if they have good intentions. The benefit is that people will have true choice and agency, and that large government corporations will be truly subject to the will of all the people they work for. Of course the defense companies would be subject to competition, people will pay for the company they perceive as most effective for what they want to protect.

Competition is fair so long as the companies do not use violence or the threat of it to expand their consumer base. If for example Company A decides to fight company B for hegemony, I will simply end any contract with company A, and also make a contract with Company B, C, D, and E etc. as well, because they're not using violence and getting into pointless fights that endanger my life and property and those of others. When your populace has all the say in who to employ for their defense, suddenly starting a fight over who has people's business will cost you your own. People want these companies to protect them, not start fights. They want them to win fights, but not start them.

The job of a security company is to protect you and your property, and anyone you are willing to pay to protect. Companies may be contracted to protect communities in a trust where a group of people in that community agrees to a contract. Individuals who are not customers are not protected, just as you don't get insurance money if you don't have a policy that covers the incident(Not that someone couldn't offer to cover you for free). That doesn't make it just or smart to attack people and property who are not protected by a company. If a customer has people fighting on or over their property and endangering him and the things he has paid to protect, the defense company is obligated to destroy or neutralize the threat should the customer order it, if that is the agreement.

Children are the obligation of the guardian to protect and care for. It is a contract made with the child, not explicitly in this case, but a duty taken on by the parent/guardian as the child is incapable of giving it. Once a child demonstrates that they can live without support from their guardian, the guardian or ward can end the guardianship. The child can also transfer guardianship to someone else when they demonstrate explicit understanding of the duties of a guardian. If a child does not have a guardian for whatever reason, and cannot live on their own, they will probably die unless someone else takes guardianship. It would be a ****ty society where children are abandoned on the street by people capable of taking care of them, and a ****tier one where these children aren't then taken in by someone.

Fire services would be replaced by a company, maybe even bundled in with defense and medical coverage. If someone's else's house is burning down, I suppose calling the firemen would be a question of whether you're personally willing to pay for it, or if your contract in fact charges on a per-use basis, and whether you're even contractually allowed to call them in to hose down property that isn't protected under their contract. Companies could easily just not put out fires for people who aren't clients, regardless of whether their neighbors call it in. It would be each person's responsibility to have some recourse when their house catches fire.

MadVader said:

Vermillion_Hawk said:

Rallix hasn't grown out of his edgy political phase yet? Shame. Maybe reading something other than Ayn Rand would help in this situation.

Click to expand...

He was stimulated to give it another go by YallQaeda actions in Oregon.

Click to expand...

I don't see how the opinions I am giving out here match theirs. Those guys are just against powerful centralized governments. They're violent regionalist tea party-ers, basically confederates. I'm against governments in general.

Just when you think that nothing is worse than Silent Hunter 5, someone has to remind you that anarcho-capitalism exists. 

BenKenobi said:

Just when you think that nothing is worse than Silent Hunter 5, someone has to remind you that anarcho-capitalism exists. 

Click to expand...

Still better than Anarcho-Communism.
"We're not gonna have a government, but uh, you have to do what everybody else says, or else."

Anarcho-capitalism is way worse than anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-capitalism
"We're not gonna have a government. You're all on your own; hope you don't get killed! Or that you don't end up being ruled by whoever you hire to keep you safe. I'm sure they won't be assholes. "

Anarcho-communism
"We're not gonna have a government, but you're not on your own. If things are bad, we'll get together and decide what to do."

I think both are pretty **** ideologies, but at least one of them actually has a plan besides shrugging their shoulders and praying to the ghost of Adam Smith (ie, market forces) if things get ****ty.

After examining your posts I have come to the conclusion...

Read up on politics in-depth, not just the party manifest.

Huh, I guess I never realized that the Queen was just Palpatine in drag.

And Prince Charles is just Vader without the lava bath.

I think it's time for a new poll. Alot has happend globally and politically since the last one.