[QUOTE=Colibri]
Now that you bring it up, I would. As much as I dislike Paris Hilton, that could be interesting in a trainwreck kind of way.
[/QUOTE]
Or as a porno called “The Missionary Position” (with apologies to Christopher Hitchens).
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Now that you bring it up, I would. As much as I dislike Paris Hilton, that could be interesting in a trainwreck kind of way.
[/QUOTE]
The reverse, on the other hand, would be truly horrifying. (Even if MT were still alive.)
I’d hope if the US became majority Orthodox we’d have the good sense to install an emperor, or at least a king, who would then possibly (but not necessarily) have that power. A leader who is merely elected should have no say in the Church, but a sacramentally annointed monarch should.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Lots of GD posters are so Libertarian their ideas are indistinguishable from anarchism.
[/QUOTE]
Although, come to think of it . . .
The tradition of anarchism, so labelled, is actually rather communistic – it aims to abolish the state and to abolish private ownership of the means of production. That goes back to Proudhon. Anarchism - Wikipedia And it’s a position I can’t recall any Doper advocating. Libertarians, so labelled, actually envision the reduction of state power as leading to untrammelled capitalism.
TANSTAAFLism. I’m a TANSTAAFList. Not quite as rabid and radical as Heinlein was, because I don’t beleive rampant capitalism is quite the answer either. There HAVE to be some checks and balances, imho.
But hey, who am I kidding? All I am is just some guy on a message board. My ideas either won’t work or won’t be implemented. Still fun to talk about tho, no?
85 was in reply to 84. 86 is a spy
[QUOTE=NoClueBoy]
TANSTAAFLism.
[/QUOTE]
Strictly speaking, TANSTAAFL is a philosophy of life (a pessimistic one, IMO; also a false one – as Spider Robinson has pointed out, practically everything worthwhile you have in life, from birth, is handed to you without your personally having done anything to earn it). It has no political implications as such.
[QUOTE=NoClueBoy]
He was sponsered by Keds™ in what was later seen to be a huge misunderstanding of what they thought he said to their marketing VP over the phone.
[/QUOTE]
Fifteen THOUSAND posts and you wait till now to unload that? I spit my soda out, I laughed so hard. You, sir, are a wit.
The usual illegal aspects are all bannable, or at least lock-post-able offenses now that in the last year or so the rules of the SDMB have been firmed up and clarified some.
I dunno- has anyone ever tried to make a very serious and persuasive argument for dismantling the SDMB? That’s a pretty rare , if ever seen at all, position…
Cartooniverse, who consistently advocates for more cleavage in posts. 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It has no political implications as such.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it does. In a TANSTAAFL type of system, there would be no (or few) welfare type programs. (Which is one of the reasons I can’t say I’m completely proTAN) This would have huge political implications. Consider, what type of agency provides for the set up and continued operation of assistance programs, or for that matter, for community services? Government. So TANSTAAFL would indeed have political implications. Similarly, some current religious ideologies have huge political implications. Just because something doesn’t lable itself as a political force, doesn’t mean it isn’t one.
Cartoon, at first I thought you said “twit,” and I was concerned.
[QUOTE=NoClueBoy]
Yes it does. In a TANSTAAFL type of system, there would be no (or few) welfare type programs.
[/QUOTE]
No . . . TANSTAAFL means, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Not, “There shouldn’t be.” I.e., you’ll always pay for what you get, sooner or later, even if it appears to be free at the time. False, as I say, and, more importantly, nonprescriptive.
I know perfectly well what it means, thank you. :rolleyes: But apparantly our interpretations of it’s implications are different. Oh well. 
Sorry for the hijacks, folks. You may now have the thread back.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Although, come to think of it . . .
The tradition of anarchism, so labelled, is actually rather communistic – it aims to abolish the state and to abolish private ownership of the means of production. That goes back to Proudhon. Anarchism - Wikipedia And it’s a position I can’t recall any Doper advocating. Libertarians, so labelled, actually envision the reduction of state power as leading to untrammelled capitalism.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, if I’d wanted to say I espouse Libertarianism, I would have. I find Libertarianism as repellant as the current system. I’m a “no-prefix” anarchism fellow-traveller, with anarcho-syndicalism and techno-anarchism coming closest to my personal philosophy. I have no beef with a free market, but then that’s not the same as Capitalism-as-we-know-it, which I can’t see existing without the State.
Umm, I wasn’t really replying to you, Brain, but you were the last poster on the subject.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Of course, if I’d wanted to say I espouse Libertarianism, I would have. I find Libertarianism as repellant as the current system. I’m a “no-prefix” anarchism fellow-traveller, with anarcho-syndicalism and techno-anarchism coming closest to my personal philosophy. I have no beef with a free market, but then that’s not the same as Capitalism-as-we-know-it, which I can’t see existing without the State.
Umm, I wasn’t really replying to you, Brain, but you were the last poster on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
OK, but without the state, would we still have private ownership of the means of production?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
OK, but without the state, would we still have private ownership of the means of production?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see what stops it, just no longer having a State. But Capitalism-as-we-have-it stretches to more than just a definition of who owns what. There are issues of how they got it (“Property is theft”), and what they do with it once they have it(unfettered profit motive), along with the consequences for the propertyless and the environment. The State has something to do with a lot of this.
This turns into somewhat of a hijack, but to expand:
I don’t think my preferred system of government is workable in the here-and-now, but I see it becoming feasible in the future.
I have no problem with private ownership of personal property
In my ideal system, no-one should be able to own land, though.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I have no problem with private ownership of personal property
In my ideal system, no-one should be able to own land, though.
[/QUOTE]
What about factories, mines, ships?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What about factories, mines, ships?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, No, Yes
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
IANASatanist, but I’m pretty knowledgable about LaVey, and I think at one point outlined a few of his “beliefs”, as well as the histry and schism of the CoS in a not-negative way. They’re really a lot like Dopers: dedicated to irradicating ignorance They just think it’s OK to scare and mock people while they do it. Quite a bit like the inhabitants of the Pit, come to think of it.
So, if you want a position supporting CoS, I guess I’m your gal. Baby killing “Satanists”, you’ll have to keep looking. (If any even exist.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m glad WhyBaby got the name Cailleigh (did I get the spelling right?) and not Zeena. 
Pay my membership fee when my free trial runs out and i’ll advocate any position you want me to.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I’m glad WhyBaby got the name Cailleigh (did I get the spelling right?) and not Zeena.
[/QUOTE]
OH! So close! CAILEIGH - you got the I, but gave her an extra L. We’ll say it’s for lurve, and all will be well.
Zeena snerk. What *were *they thinking? :smack: