(December 22, 2011 at 5:32 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:
This is where the graph brought me.

Quite shocked, I had you marked as Fascist Nationalist.

(December 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I agree in the scene that no one can "own" land cause we are not immortal, the land with be there much longer then we.

If we claim unoccupied land, and produce, and contribute some of our crops back to the people, I see no reason to be not allowed to "own" the land. We own it as long as we produce it.
We are using the earth as indented.
Big co-op farms would be a nice idea, people live and work on their land and x amount of families could live in the area and produce the land. Keep a % for themselves and give a % to the non farmers. In return get non farm related products.
Land grabs should be illegal, how can the government say that a Wal-mart parking lot is needed by the community? If anything it hurts the community, but it keeps the dollars rolling. Damn money!

True, I am not immortal, but I hope that my family as a whole is, that we are here until none of us are left. In that sense it would be my family that owned the land, with me as a steward for as long as I lived and was capable. That's how I was raised, you buy land, you never relinquish it. It is not profit, but a small world for you to mold into a good life for you and yours. I don't know that I'm on board with owning entire states that sit useless (as has been the case in the past with land ownership..and in some places still is the case). I'd still be compelled to try it though, greedy..lol.

I'd like to mention that the idea of producing from land and offering a percentage of the proceeds to the community in return for off farm goods is exactly how it's done currently (though most times the community is not willing to offer the kinds of assurances that processors and middle men are, or the price when balanced against cost of retail). It's simply very difficult to carry around eight tons of grain as currency. So the grain is traded in for a more convenient token, which represents the labor and investment that the farmer has made and is now offering to those around him. I mean, if someone wanted to trade a wooden rocking chair for a few bushels of tomatoes I'm all for it (I've done that before). It would just get very tedious when you consider the amount and weight of the things that come off of even a moderate piece of land. We're talking tons and tons of food per acre with even the slightest bit of management.

All of the money involved in producing something off of the land happens in the walmart parking lot. The farmer may get payed 4 or 5 cents for a tomato you're about to pay $1.59 for. In that I can agree with you that the walmart parking lot doesn't help anyone all that much. However, the walmart parking lot is a very useful piece of our overall system of food distribution. In that respect it's nearly priceless. Consider making a journey, LoTR style, to the opposite hemisphere to get a tomato out of season. Thats the only real alternative under the current system, which heavily favours large single points of distrubution to make the logistics affordable. Affordable being relative...remember, 4 cents to $1.59.... If food production were more compact, efficient, and more technologically developed (the inputs are usually cutting edge but the system is very much like the ones we have leveraged since the middle ages) we could perhaps produce closer to the point of sale (or trade if you prefer). Small scale local production on a global, commercial scale..hehehe.

I'm of the opinion that fixing food would fix a whole host of other problems best described as political or social problems as an afterthought, but I'm biased.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Wal-mart would be a great place if it was a local owed co-op of local goods and imports being traded for a currency. It could also serve as the distribution center for exporting of the local goods of that community. All this individuality stuff in the US is too much, we all rely on one another we can't all be completely individual. There is nothing wrong with getting together and doing constructive things.

I guess since we are talking about farming, and you mentioned tomatoes out of season in certain areas.
What about large scale hydroponic grow operations? For variety of crops in any type of environment.
When people say "we need to go back to simpler times" I agree, like local food production, local manufacturing, closer organized communities. But it does not mean
that we can't bring our smart phones with us. We need to live old school style, with our 21st century technology.

Along the lines of empty land sitting doing nothing, I agree, it is a waste for land to sit and be useless if some human thinks he can develop it and make it useful for all. Same with housing. It is sick to me that all these houses and apartments sit empty while people sleep in tents in my city at 10 below.

I also think fixing food would fix a lot of problems, as would legalizing "drugs", a few things people think are minor, but I think would have much larger effect.

Yeah, indoor hydro is seriously gaining steam. The stumbling block has been initial investment relative to field agriculture. Not that field ag has a lower investment in reality, simply that the cost has been shoved off on you and I, John Q, in the forms of subsidies for this or that, or development initiatives and matching systems in the grant process. As well as the nature of the grant process and ag lending itself, favoring the same group of individuals who are aware of what is available and actively work to make sure that the options are limited for others, ensuring market share for themselves both in the grants and lending, as well as finished product. Honestly, brilliant positioning over the last fifty years or so. I'm on the other side of the fence, but they say that you should appreciate your enemies victories and achievements. So hats off to those fuckers all the same. lol. Without giants you can never earn the "giant-slayer" title.

On the subject of legalizing drugs as it would relate to farming (specifically farms here). Our farmers could produce a higher quality product than what is normally available on market (complete with safety and purity regulations) for fractions of pennies on the dollar compared to the current cartel/import system. Not a lot of money for assault rifles and foot soldiers, and not a lot of room for crime if our guys took a hold of growing the crops. All the while creating employment opportunities and revenue, but yeah, the "war on drugs" is a fantastic idea....:rolls eyes:

(heads off to find his one hitter)

(December 22, 2011 at 5:32 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:
This is where the graph brought me.

Thats up in the communist (authoritarian state socialism) section of the graph.

(December 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 5:32 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:
This is where the graph brought me.

Quite shocked, I had you marked as Fascist Nationalist.

Depends on how you define "fascist nationalist".
What statements of mine really made you think that I could be a fascist nationalist?
Yes, I'm a nationalist, but I do not really see me supporting the ideals of Mussolini or Hitler, as they are certainly not applicable to our modern times, nor to our people in any way. Turkism frees herself and her followers from such labels, right, left, statist, papist etc.
I took the test simply to see where I would stand from the "standpoint" of the western view of the political spectrum.
As you see, I stand right there, and I took the test before, and my results have not changed much.
I'd state my political goals in a seperate thread later on.

Quote:Thats up in the communist (authoritarian state socialism) section of the graph.

In truth, I'm quite the anti-communist, generally.
Not that I support certain economic characteristics, however being a communist would mean for me to hate the people I hold near and dear, and love those who I hate.

(December 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Not that I support certain economic characteristics, however being a communist would mean for me to hate the people I hold near and dear, and love those who I hate.

It wouldn't mean that at all, mate. Do you think that communists hate their families? Dat is fucked up, bruv...

(December 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm)frankiej Wrote:

(December 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Not that I support certain economic characteristics, however being a communist would mean for me to hate the people I hold near and dear, and love those who I hate.

It wouldn't mean that at all, mate. Do you think that communists hate their families? Dat is fucked up, bruv...

I didn't mean my family.
I wouldn't hate my family no matter what they were their views, or my views were.
That would require me to hate our founding fathers, the historical figures we revere, and of course, Hüseyin Nihal Atsız, İsmail Gaspirali and many other leading figures of our ideology, who were at odds with the Soviets and their supporters most of the time.

You can still admire someone who you wouldn't agree with on certain topics.

(December 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm)frankiej Wrote: You can still admire someone who you wouldn't agree with on certain topics.

Well, I do agree on all topics with them. I wouldn't call myself a Turkist if I didn't.
I actually agreed with them even before I even knew of them.