The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

[TJ]

Yeah I completely agree with you Baron and i also looked at the questions through the lens of what would or wouldnt be beneficial to today's Armenia. I dont agree with the legalization of marijuana in Armenia. i would agree with it in the US because so many people do it and it is causing the government so much money to enforce these laws against the drug. but in Armenia the use of marijuana is not as widespread and the government doesnt spend nearly as much money comparatively as the US does to enforce the laws therefore it is better they stay in place for the moral welfare of the society. by the way i have to say if someone uses any type of drug then they lose a lot of my respect.

anyway this is where i am

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian [B]Yeah I completely agree with you Baron and i also looked at the questions through the lens of what would or wouldnt be beneficial to today's Armenia. I dont agree with the legalization of marijuana in Armenia. i would agree with it in the US because so many people do it and it is causing the government so much money to enforce these laws against the drug. but in Armenia the use of marijuana is not as widespread and the government doesnt spend nearly as much money comparatively as the US does to enforce the laws therefore it is better they stay in place for the moral welfare of the society. by the way i have to say if someone uses any type of drug then they lose a lot of my respect.

anyway this is where i am

Haha, you crazy authoritarian you. I was riiiiight at the border.

I have personally never done any drugs in my life (no cigarettes either) but I don't find it fair to arrest someone if he is caught smoking a joint.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization must also be understood. Decriminalization means that you won't be arrested if you're caught with a certain amount of pot on you, but it does not make it legal to sell marijuana.

Anywho, I get a feeling that Baron Moog is writing one long-ass reply to this.

[patlajan]

To whom may it concern,


Just as I suspected I am a centrist.

I respect your right to have a cheesy back and fourth letter within a post dialogue, however if it gets out of hand a tax should be levied on it.

Sincerely,
The guy in the middle

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by patlajan To whom may it concern,


Just as I suspected I am a centrist.

I respect your right to have a cheesy back and fourth letter within a post dialogue, however if it gets out of hand a tax should be levied on it.

Sincerely,
The guy in the middle

Dear Patlajan,

While my worthy opponent may feel threatened by your tax plans, I will support it, as he and I are the 1st and 4th most post-wealthy members of this forum, respectively. Therefore, it is our obligation to help out the less fortunate members.

Sincerely,
The anti-thesis of my anti-thesis

[PASAMONSTER]

Hey you guys handle the politics and the red tape, you're good at it! I applaude.

I offer my humble services if needed. I'm good at making headaches disappear. So if you need me in any form of government, I dont really care as long as they pay real money, call 1-800-TYLENOL.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Dear Anonymouse,

I am flattered that you hold me in such high esteem and I am certain that you are already aware that the feeling is mutual. I would be delighted to shake your hand, yet I would neither ask for your autograph, nor give you mine, as that would contradict the opinion you stated, and with which I agree, in the thread named "Act like a peon and be treated like a peon. "

Now, I will be the first to admit that you are more educated than me in the field of economics. However, I will continue to believe that in the case of Armenia, government support for farmers and small businesses is needed. Free trade wouldn't work right now as we would be innundated with Turkish products, which would cause even more problems for our farmers. Remember when Vazgen Sarkisian decided to support armenian egg farmers? The result was that there are virtually no turkish eggs in Armenia now. Not helping our farmers and small businesses would eventually lead to emigration, which could in the long run lead to the demise of Armenia.

Of course, I have a libertarian point of view when it comes to the media being totally independant of the government. Also, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but do not want to see the legalization of every other drug out there.

Reaffirming my best wishes,
your anti-thesis

Dear Mr. Baron,

I am writing to tell you that I am myself flattered that you hold me in such high regard, and would like to thank you for pointing out the whole peon business that I posted, which flew by my head right now.

I would also like to tell you that you are right with regard to the Armenian farmers, however, it is precisely due to too much government involvement, price fixing, wage setting, taxation, etc., that causes businesses and people to emigrate out of Armenia, much like business in the U.S. are leaving for other places with cheaper labor.

In the end, politics and economics are two different things. Perhaps if people were left to themselves economically, they wouldn't need to emigrate, since lack of government interference in the free market would actually lower prices, and allow more development for businesses. Time and time again, even in this country, it has been proven when government backs off of the market, development surges.

Respectfully,
Your respectful polar opposite.

[xBaron Dants]

Dear Mr. Anonymouse,

It causes great pleasure for me to compliment you on other messages which you have posted, and from which, I proudly admit, have taken advice from.

However, I believe that on this particular issue, we will have to agree to disagree. I am not sold on the idea that humanity is, at this point in its evolution (if it is to reach a higher stage one day), able to create a society where there would be no taxes, and where roads would be maintained, police would still exist, etc.

I also believe that in Armenia, the government presently needs to play a role in getting these small farmers and businessmen up on their feet. If there was no aid, one would assume that it would be the big farming companies, led by the oligarchs of our country, that would be able to provide the lowest prices.

Eventually, the role of government will decrease, but one has to keep note that our country is still in its first fragile years of independance.

Always a pleasure,
Your anti-thesis

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Dear Mr. Anonymouse,

It causes great pleasure for me to compliment you on other messages which you have posted, and from which, I proudly admit, have taken advice from.

However, I believe that on this particular issue, we will have to agree to disagree. I am not sold on the idea that humanity is, at this point in its evolution (if it is to reach a higher stage one day), able to create a society where there would be no taxes, and where roads would be maintained, police would still exist, etc.

I also believe that in Armenia, the government presently needs to play a role in getting these small farmers and businessmen up on their feet. If there was no aid, one would assume that it would be the big farming companies, led by the oligarchs of our country, that would be able to provide the lowest prices.

Eventually, the role of government will decrease, but one has to keep note that our country is still in its first fragile years of independance.

Always a pleasure,
Your anti-thesis

Dear Mr. Dants,

I believe that on this particular issue we can agree to disagree, or have a nice cozy discussion. But before we agree to disagree I must point out that taxation is a tool of a centralized authority. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it only hampers on production and growth.

The State is a monopoly of force in a given territory. It's main reason for existence is extracting taxes from the people living in its territory in exchange for "security", roads, police, firefighters, etc. What distinguishes the State from a band of robbers? Nothing. It is the most powerful and dangerous of all robbers since it originated in theft and violence. No "State" has come into existence through peaceful means. The State thus is a coercive monopoly forcing coercion on you in the form of taxes so that it can provide roads, security, police, etc. Thus the state has to protect its tax base against potential rivals, other governments, and private entities; roads, are such a by product, nevessary to move the military or police forces to get easy access to the taxpayers. Only political conditioning would make us believe that only the government can be responsible for roads,police, firefighters, freeways etc., not private entities or private business or individuals.

It is obvious that the State has more aggressive than protective aspects and that its aggressive all the time by exploiting its taxpayers far beyond the resources it would need to fullfill its protective function.

Sincerely,
Your antithesis.

[xBaron Dants]

My dear Mr. Anonymouse,

I will admit, reading your views about the State are interesting and certainly provide a whole new way of seeing things. However, I must sadly confess that I believe that your opinion has merit only in philosophical terms, and it would be a waste of time to even discuss about the possibility of realizing it. This is not to say that I consider what you're saying to be a waste of time, just that I believe that it is not a concept that will come into effect anytime during my lifetime.

Private companies can surely take care of things such as maintaining roads, clearing the roads after snowstorm, and even public security. However, I feel that the State, which is elected by the citizenry has more credibility to have such responsibilities than a private company. Also, it is the only way where we can ensure the lowest numbers of "free riders", as we all know that "free riding" could lead to problems.

Also, the State is instrumental in the world of international relations. We DO need diplomats in other countries, and we DO need an army.

Respectfully,
Your anti-thesis, who would still welcome you in his future government.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants My dear Mr. Anonymouse,

I will admit, reading your views about the State are interesting and certainly provide a whole new way of seeing things. However, I must sadly confess that I believe that your opinion has merit only in philosophical terms, and would be a waste of time to even discuss about the possibility of realizing it. This is not to say that I consider what you're saying to be a waste of time, just that I believe that it is not a concept that will come into effect anytime during my lifetime.

Private companies can surely take care of things such as maintaining roads, clearing the roads after snowstorm, and even public security. However, I feel that the State, which is elected by the citizenry has more credibility to have such responsibilities than a private company. Also, it is the only way where we can ensure the lowest numbers of "free riders", as we all know that "free riding" could lead to problems.

Also, the State is instrumental in the world of international relations. We DO need diplomats in other countries, and we DO need an army.

Respectfully,
Your anti-thesis, who would still welcome you in his future government.

Dear Mr. Dants,

It is indeed interesting that you at your age are capable of discussing this, far beyond than what surferarmo could ever have accomplished. Tis an honor Mr. Dants.

However, to assume that because the State is elected ( democracy ) it is better, is a epistemological error, since Democracy is a failure, if looked at historically, and if learned from whatever tidbits of facts that we have left untampered, hence my tagline, and especially when exposed to the rules of economics.

The collective herd cannot choose or decide. Action in the full sense presupposes the ability to choose. only individuals can decide their course of action. A collective entity, whether a group, or nation, chooses a course of action only in a metaphorical sense. In order to act, a collective entity must recognize and requires a unit of agency, the "State". This is why Democracy is coercion.

Democracy, or better yet "voting" is not the "will of the people". The "unit of agency", the State, is problematic since the group is nonunanimous. That individuals cannot have identical interests follows from the concept of individuality. Hence the problem of group identity arises. People are born into a State, as we know them and as adults are forced to risk their lives in war ( thanks to conscription which was made possible by the French Revolution ). Groups are not allowed to choose some other unit of agency, unless they leave that territory of the State.

The market is based on individual choice ( capitalism ), whereas politics is based on collective decision. That the two contradict each other is never talked about, and in fact State interference into the market is the trend, or rule, rather than the exception, and in that it is socialistic, since Democracy is based on redistribution.

So democracy as a means of findingout what the people want is flawed. Once the principle of simply adding votes is agreed upon, majority rule alone is possible. So they choose any constitution that maximises redistributive legislation. This leads to unlimited "democracy" for it imposes dominated choices ( coercion ). Democratic metarules are no guarantee, and never have been against totalitarianism for no constitution can provide such a guarantee. As a method of finding out what the holistic entity, or the society wants, it is meaningless aside from head counting. So holistic values, values attributed to a holistic actor, "the people", "the society", or "social justice" or "equality of outcome", are appealed to in order to erode and override the very property rights that a social order si intended to protect. We move from a "protective state" ( since that is what the State claims to be doing ), to a redistributive coercive state.

In any event, I recommend you look into the book, "Democracy: The God That Failed".

Sincerely,
Your anti thesis.