/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3926967
According to that I'm split between a libertarian and a democrat, but I hate democrats.

Political spectrums are stupid. Whatever happened to using sets of logical axioms to define your political beliefs?

Anyone who thinks the spectrum exists is a retard who should be denied the vote.

Anyone who enjoys worshipping one side of the liberal versus conservative circus or actually believes in political spectrums should not get the vote. It's meaningless, like astrology or the myer's briggs test.

u mad fags?

libertarian socialism is the best, my friends

Why does it really matter how money a country creates?

Let's say that the number of "dollars" in the world doubles (whether this is through the Fed screwing with debt, or the government printing bills, or whatever). Everything in America is still really worth the same, so before long, everything would cost twice as many dollars.

How is this sort of thing ever helpful? For that matter, how is it harmful? (beyond short-term instability, and transfer of wealth from private citizens to government if you're bothered by that sort of thing)

>inb4 not science

Liberty is typical of intellectually disgusting ideologues who live in a world of self-justification, mysticism and superstition, and they are a majority compared to the few pragmatic logical humanists in existence. If any of us somehow manage to bring ourselves to act like amoral sociopaths so that we obtain a position of power then we would do well to root out such individuals and keep them under control.

>Rationalism only
It's bullshit, just like OP pic.

>>3002093
That's funny because I consider fascism to be on par with communism. Mussolini's fascism, state shintoism and national socialism all have their roots in collectivism.

Consult the spectrum.

>>1703692

This is not science or math, and while philosophy is borderline OK for /sci/, Ayn Rand is just borderline philosophy. Take it to /new/, I'm sure you can start a shitstorm between the libertarians and the stormfags (she was Jewish).

Godel proved that for any system of axioms worth a shit (for example basic number theory), there's something that's true but unprovable. So let's say that G is a true, unprovable statement of number theory. Using number theory's traditional axioms, G is impossible to find, since that would mean you'd proved it was true. Is it possible that G could be found using a different set of axioms?

In other words: Is it possible to prove that something is both true and unprovable within traditional number theory by using some different set of axioms? I'm guessing no.

pic unrelated