What Is Your Political Philosophy?

And now you've just verified what I've said. According to that snippet the Knyaz is a chieftain and didn't collect taxes.
It even implies that feudal statehoods did not come into being despite the existence of such a government (Knyaz)until much later.

That's your opinion.
Which I challenge.

I've already given you a couple of examples which disprove that.
For example the Kowloon walled city which did not have a government but was still a functional collection of some 2000 people.
This already challenges that government is an indispensable necessity.

 

So which are carrots? Capitalism or socialism?

 

Not true. Try again?

 

Socialism includes Government. Why do you believe that is not true? Socialism starts with a social contract.

 

The greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people within a system of minimal regulatory order necessary to lessen the potential for collusion, crony capitalism, thus maintaining confidence in the concept of a free market economy allowing for the greatest potential for each individual to be able to provide food,clothing and shelter for themselves, which in turn, increases the probability to improve upon that basic condition during a normal human lifespan.

Basically it is a synthesis of John Nash Equilibrium theory,John Locke philosophy, within the current age of computerized robotic machinery that will extract raw materials, grow food resources, produce goods, distribute goods, manufacture self sustaining domicle units and provide transportation vehicles, build renewable energy centers and infrastructure.

The potential future may be an Agrarian type community as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, without the immoral use of slave human labor. The robotic machine labor and computerized distribution system, will eventually make
human labor obsolete. Humans will have to rethink what the meaning of their existence is. Hopefully they will be able to transition to the idea that abundance of food, clothing and shelter, is no longer a question, but is simply a given. It may take several years for predatory capitalists to understand what is happening, and some may initially attempt to sabatoge the emerging production system, to maintain their "supply and demand" market manipulation. Some may require psychological reconditioning and possible medical treatment to rid them of obsessive compulsion to control and manipulate and subjegate
all other life forms to their individual will.

Property rights, will have to be reexamined, within the context of this emerging technologically sustained market system, and to prevent abuse of the greatest possible freedom concept by individuals, that could deprive the people of the ability to be able to enjoy the environment of earth and ocean. Thus, some logical maximum allowable land ownership/person ratio will have to be determined, which will sustain the continuing increase in world human population. The alternative is a nation/state/world democratically decided human reproduction quota, not mandatory, nor enforced, but voluntary compliance only, perhaps encouraged with some form of logical positive psychology, which could be accomplished through subliminal queing, or advertisements, media, and smart phone apps.

 

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

My god, you are simply unbelievable

 

electoral responsibility can be as responsible as fiscal responsibility. only the right doesn't seem to know that.

 

Yes, yes, but let's get to the core of the matter...Exactly how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Well, I'll go ahead and tell you since you don't seem to know...A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a wood chuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood.*

*Since it seems to be silly time on the farm.

 

Like how?, subsidising the cost of pencils perhaps.
Good governance is a human attribute it's not something that you can just throw money at.

And I noticed that you still haven't replied to my previous post.

 

Simplification. Do we really need wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right refuses to pay for?

 

You still haven't answered my previous post #526
And yes you do need to uphold the law and protect the nation.
And if you really need an obvious answer it's to ensure stability as to why we need these things in the first place.
And you can't really refuse to pay for these things. So I don't know where you got that last bit from.

 

You claim they didn't collect taxes. You mean they didn't have that social Power or they didn't collect taxes, personally.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't provided anything that doesn't rely on States or statism; even if they are not doing it themselves. We have a UN, now.

 

All right just for clarity.
In the 13th century and even before, people within areas of old Muscovy had a Knyaz.
His responsibility was to lead his people in the event of war.
He didn't collect taxes because it wasn't his responsibility and there was no need. Ergo despite being the government the government didn't collect taxes.

I have. Kowloon's walled city didn't rely on any governmental authority.
The same can be said of Somalia today.

They weren't. Their only concern was to engage in commerce.

And? The UN isn't a state and it's not mandatory to be a member of.

 

In other words, there was a separation of powers and someone else had to collect taxes. I got it.

You claim that, but did they have public roads and public aqueducts? If so, then there must have been some form of taxation to accomplish it.

 

No. I didn't mean that. I said that there wasn't any need to collect taxes.
In fairness I should have said that there wasn't a need to collect taxes and therefore not a responsibility of the Knyaz.
Is that a bit clearer for you?

Well there were roads but not what we would call roads. They were just well trodden paths and no they weren't built nor maintained.
And no there weren't aqueducts or any other type of public work of that type during the period.

And it would be somewhat preferable if responded in full.
I say that because you haven't responded to the Kowloon example
If you need a reminder it's a reference to the idea that the government is an indispensable necessity.

 

Doesn't really matter since any levy of troops can be considered a form of Tax.

Kowloon probably depends on another State for social support; and, we have the socialism of a UN.

 

The Knyaz didn't levy troops, he led them.
In the event of invasion the entirety of a district ran the risk of annihilation ergo service was voluntary due to mutual survival and not an obligation to the government. There was no need to impose a levy under law.
Naturally this changed as the time went on.

Probably . So you don't know do you? You've just made an assumption.
So as I've said Kowloon did not rely on other either the Hong Kong Colony or the PRC for social support.
There was no government assistance at all and there simply wasn't any government at all.

And socialism is not a type of government.
It describes governmental policy.
And why is it a UN? as there's only one UN in existence.
In reference to UN socialism. It doesn't exist because socialism is about taking control of the means of production i.e. nationalisation of industry. The UN doesn't do that.

 

Can you cite those sources? The power to levy and lead troops is a form of government.

Here is anecdotal evidence that contradicts your claims, from Wikipedia:

Why include an emperor if there was no government.

 

I can't give you a wikipedia article if that's what you mean.

Why don't you actually read about the Kowloon walled city post WWII? Because it's quite clear that you haven't.
And there wasn't an emperor in Kowloon.
It's like saying that the city of Hereford must be a place that soldiers cross because of the etymology. The fact is they don't.

 

I find it difficult to believe a person can have a power to lead troops without any power to levy troops. How did that work under feudalism?

Any form of government is still government, even black market government.

 

Except it wasn't initially feudalism. That came later.
I've already told you that it was out of mutual necessity that people went to war and not through the law.
There is such a thing as volunteering.

Nope. Because organised crime is not a government. It's private enterprise.

 

Can you cite any sources to support your claim? Levying labor to prosecute any wars is still a form of tax. Your claim may only hold true for the common defense.

Controlling something is analogous to governing it. Simply quibbling about the cost is disingenuous.

 

Where would you prefer that source came from? And which particular claim do you want?
I have a degree in history if that helps.
And I did just say it was in the aid of common defence.
And no levying soldiers for war isn't a form of taxation.
Because taxation is a constant requirement of modern government whereas levying soldiers is not a constant requirement.

So if I run a small business somewhere then I must be the government.
I think the short answer to that would simply be; no.
Organised crime within Kowloon's walled city was not a form of government. It was private enterprise.
I've been completely genuine about my position. If you really think I don't what I'm talking about then all I can say is that my family is from Hong Kong.

 

It doesn't matter what your political philosophy is, political correctness rules.