^

No, seriously, in PM I can actually be thoughtful and, uhhh, like, well, not-krellin...

Listen to krellin. He knows best

Eradicate the Muslins and Mexicams end sernd dem berk ta guadalaraqistan. The gays are ruining Murcia and causing surch problems. Roosia is our alli and frend. We should nook China. (You should discuss with meh)

I would genuinely pick krellin, if his offer is sincere. I also want to observe that discussion if it becomes krellin. I think he'll be very thoughtful and convincing (for a conservative, of course :-P).

I'm not conservative. I consider conservatives another brand of Statists, like yourself, a socialist. However, I could present an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint that would probably convince you to abandon your Statism.

just looking at wikipedia definition of anarcho-capitalism, the term is making me sick right now, but maybe you have a better definition?

http://www.debate.org/

If you guys do it on this site you two can debate without interference but you could have spectators.

While a spectated debate would be interesting, and I'd be into doing that in the future, the purpose of this assignment is not to formally debate, but to get a better understanding of the opposing point of view and recognize my biases. Krellin, if you'd be interested in that I'd love to have a discussion.

"an open-minded conservative"

isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? And i don't mean to insult conservatives here, but there is some personality work which makes claims like: "Liberals are more open-minded and creative whereas conservatives are more orderly and better organized."

There was even the wonderful claim that liberals start businesses, but conservatives keep businesses running... Of course most of these studies - say you test someone's open-mindedness, and then guess whether they identify as liberal/conservative, only get the answer right about 60-80% of the time. Which happens to be better than random chance, but is also far from perfect.

I'm sure that those studies must have been done by liberals because when you try to bring any reason to their minds, they respond with trigger words like racism, sexism, and xenophobia.

That's racist, sexist, and most of all, xenophobic. How dare you.

You're all insufferable.
(Also, a little clarity: those are BUZZ words, leon, not trigger words. Unless they're YOUR trigger words. But I don't know why they would be.)

DEFINITION of 'Anarcho-Capitalism' A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses.

then the sickness the word provokes to me is confirmed. Only thing I wanna say is that it sounds ultra-conservative.

Not quite. An anarcho-capitalist is more resemblant of libertarians in their glorification of the individual and their freedoms. An ultra-conservative is claimant of the bastion of a small government, but they also are desirous of a powerful state-operated military force. They are statists, the ideological enemy of anarchists of all stripes.

Ultra-conservatives are the ideological enemy of basically everyone that isn't ultra-conservative.

I agree with principans' analysis of anarcho-capitalism

And what do you all think of social anarchism and anarcho-communism?

Just a pair of considerations:

1. Absence of state does not necessarily mean absence of collective organization, or does it?

2. Would defenders of anarcho-capitalism say that they are on the individualist side of the individualism vs collectivism discussion?

In an anarcho capitalist structure, collective action is fine as long as the group isn't aggressive against and respects the rights of the individuals. In fact, collaboration in such an environment is inevitable and productive.

bump

Did krellin not emgage in thoughtful conversation with you?

@Leon "I'm sure that those studies must have been done by liberals because when you try to bring any reason to their minds, they respond with trigger words like racism, sexism, and xenophobia."

Would you fin i surprising if, in principle, psychologists were able i match up personality traits with probably party affiliations? Even at 70% chance of matching.

If you can effectively test all components of a person's personality.

I can't guess, from first principles, what the common traits would be. But having a 'risk-averse' conservative party, and a 'open-minded' liberal party, makes some amount of sense.

Evolution drives us to be risk-averse - so we don't die - and to be open-minded - so we don't stagnate when changes hit us.

Those two idea may clash, you can't try new things while being overly risk-averse; but it is possible that having two competing strategies at the same time increases the likelihood that the collective will survive.

It seems pretty coherent to me, but the research is pretty hard to do, and it may ne that there is more factors at work than just personality.

"Would you fin i surprising if, in principle, psychologists were able i match up personality traits with probably party affiliations? Even at 70% chance of matching."

No. How old are you? Quite old? There's a 70% chance you're Republican.

"a 'risk-averse' conservative party"

What about conservatism do you find to be risk-averse?

Why don't you ask the conservatives?

tbf, there are quite a few politically-freighted meanings of "conservative" out there at the moment, and I'm just speaking of the American spectrum of politics. "one who conserves things" is a descriptive title, but IMO not specific enough. I could easily see (in 40 years) groups of people trying to conserve the principles of... today's progressivism. A better question is this: what principles or practices is one trying to conserve/preserve?

@Friga - did you find someone? Is this for a school assignment?

I did find someone- thank you.

Ain't ya find contact me, bro?

I'm very sad. I fell like I've been intellectual led on, only to be hiked at the alter. Frankly, I'm offended... There should really be a law...

Take it as a compliment- I could never match wits with you, krellin.

(but I could take you any day on a 1v1 map)

There is only shame in winning a 1v1 game.

@"A better question is this: what principles or practices is one trying to conserve/preserve?" i think the question i'm answering is 'why are you trying to conserve/preseve (whatever)' to which my answer is, 'you are risk-averse and thus want to keep things the way they are.'