Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
You are referring to bonded slavery, I am referring to wage slavery. Allowing slaves to choose their masters and choose who gets to exploit them does not make one "free". that is a another topic though.

The US economic system was always based on good ole capitalism and exploiting many poor whites (wage slavery) and many poor black people (bonded slavery) co-existed.

There were many riots by poor white people in early US history rioting because of their position of being exploited by the rich few. Some early rebellions in the US to attempt to overthrow the old oligarchy were groups of slaves/indians/poor white farmers. They probably would have created a system more to your liking. These rebellions don't fit the american mythos so they are not taught or not taught to any extent in schools in the US.

Why people flock to certain areas is a case by case basis and can't be generalized as being all for one reason.

Switzerland is an example of a country that has a high standard of living however they like most modern nations get this high standard of living due to exploitation of workers, even if they aren't the ones doing the exploiting. Cheap goods and oil flows more abundantly to the west for a reason and it's not because they are being nice to us and like giving us presents.

Switzerland also acts as a tax haven for corporations that want to avoid taxes so their banks are flooded with money that was obtained the good ole fashion capitalist way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 12:33 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(18-09-2013 06:06 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Trulyx, why won't you answer my questions, like I answer yours?

Q: You're debating the definitions of words, but be specific, what POLICIES do you disagree with me on, and can you identify one instance where the difference between us does not come down to my resistance to use physical force, in the clear and literal sense of the word: namely the threat that a material object (fist, handcuff, bullet) will be exerted upon a person to coerce that person into doing something against his will?

Now, I'll answer your questions. Please do me the courtesy of answering the two basic questions I pose to you.

Of course when people want to use violence but don't want to admit being violent they'll call it “defense”. But I'm not playing word games, and I use the term very literally and in the most narrow sense, so that argument is irrelevant in our discussion. If someone hits you in the face or pulls a gun to your head, etc. that is the initiation of force. Defense is when you resist that force. When one country drops a bomb on or sends soldiers into another, that is an initiating of force, and I feel self-defense is warranted. But this is so irrelevant because I've never seen you come up with an example where I'm using the idea of 'self-defense' in a loose manner.

You said you don't believe in that. You want the democratic majority to decide what is and is not defensible, including being able to decide what can be done with your body according to majority rule. I think this is dangerous, imagine if 51% of the population are men and they think it's moral to beat and rape women, or 51% of the population is white and thinks it's moral to keep other races as slaves. I also think it's impractical because then the 51% will plunder the property of the 49%. Regardless, even though I disagree with you, I'm content to live peacefully side-by-side with you, and won't try to change you.


Here in the US we could do the same thing two ways: 1) Just follow the constitution which states the Federal government has no role other than defensive and all 'offensive' laws must be at the state level, 2) OR if you're going to absolutely insist on having your oppressive laws at the national, first provide those of us who don't like it a practical way to leave, such as joining the 'European Union', or forming an 'American Union', where if a US citizen doesn't like it, he's guaranteed the right to easily relocate to a wide variety of places where he's sure to find one he likes, with no lingering obligations to obey the laws once he's left the territory.

First-- We were never discussing policies; that would be a completely different conversation, having no relation to what is concerning my comments. I said a certain view is arbitrary. You seemed to have been saying that you are against force being used, but you also seem to be implying that you are not against it in certain situations. I'm calling that point an arbitrary line. You seem to have a problem with other people using force, when they think it is justified, but not when you think it is justified. In either case, you need to have a justification rooted in reasoning, not arbitrary nonsense. You throwing arbitrary nonsense on the wall and hoping it sticks, has nothing to do with word games or using loose definitions. Without regard to how you define it, it is an arbitrary standard. Also, like I have pointed out, defense, as an excuse or reason, does not negate violence, and defense is to prevent something, not returning force, e.g., shooting a missile (aimed at you) out of the sky, versus shooting them back at someone else.

Second-- Correction: plagiarized by Thomas Jefferson to the benefit of himself, and hypocritically, because in practice, he didn't, for a minute, stand for any thing having to do with rights of men. Natives, Africans, other non-White ethnic groups, women, poor men (of all groups), gays, and so on and so on, all of whom have suffered injustice for the entirety of our nations existence, do not get your points. Also, you might actually want to try reading the Constitution, as opposed to just making stuff up.

Third-- I never mentioned any rules, but I'll assume you are objecting to democratic system/structure. So much for Switzerland having the direct democratic elements in their system/structure, that must exclude them from your liking. What you seem to be attempting is a common, idiotic argument, that is closer to a false dilemma. The idea that if a majority of people, truly wanted to bring a country to barbarism, inequality or injustice, that it wouldn't happen, regardless. Or the idea that, it is especially better, to have 5%, or 10%, maybe 1%, of the population dictate, tyrannically, what the other 90% plus, should do, and back it up with a brutal military and police force. It is perfectly okay for 1% of the population to do what would be complete injustice if done by 99%. And 51%, really? 51-49. That is a civil war, or a separation. However, if you are talking, realistically, maybe 80-20, pretending that the 20 would stand a chance, without the consent of the 80, is complete nonsense. The majority, in a civilized society, especially a republic, necessarily has to accept the rule of law applying equally, or else it wouldn't be very civilized (see the US).

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 12:37 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:Fine, why can't we agree to disagree? I believe that people DO “own” their own bodies and minds and do have a right to defend themselves from physical force (ie rape, mugging, etc.), and thus can properly delegate that right to an agent to act on one's behalf, like the police. This is the concept of all men having "inalienable rights to life, liberty and property", as embodied by Thomas Jefferson, where inalienable means they can never be taken from you, even if 99% of the population wants to.

Since I'm so tolerant of your beliefs and content to co-exist with you, why are you insistent on changing me? I'm not asking for my system to be imposed nationwide, or forced on anyone.

I've explained this so many times, but you just don't like my answer. In Switzerland, the criminal laws and laws which coerce people are done at the LOCAL level—and it's made very easy for every Swiss to effortlessly relocate if they don't like the laws. Thus, while I still don't like the coercive laws, they're kept in check, and they can be considered 'voluntary', because you're given the choice of leaving.

I am perfectly happy to see you and those who think like you establish a society with those rules. You can setup a communist society or any other society you want. I'll genuinely wish you find a way to make it successful and be happy. Heck, if you guys are living longer, happier lives, then maybe I'll come join you and surrender my body and property to your collective.

This is SO simple. I think the problem is that you are demanding the right to force your laws upon everybody else and provide them no means of escape, trapping them like prisoners, but you don't want to admit this so you keep bringing up irrelevant distractions.

You can believe in Islamic fascism or that you can fly without technology, that doesn't make the belief any more justified and any less irrational, and I'm most definitely not going to "agree to disagree" with nonsense. I'm not tolerant of beliefs founded on whim, without rational justification. You are also not asking for unjustified systems to be changed. Personally, I don't want to co-exist with the person who thinks it is okay to kill all of the Jews or enslave all of the blacks, etc.

So, your answer is: I am for violence as long it is in my self-interest, and I'm for it when it is not in my self-interest, if I can leave, and elsewhere exists, where violence is used in my self-interest?

You are not rejecting violence. You are attempting to make a distraction. The issue never concerned leaving or not leaving. The laws, also, are always voluntary-- Haven't you heard of civil disobedience? Or is that for people who are actually nonviolent, and don't just pretend to be? Or something opposed by the cowardly, who run away from their problems and disagreements, allowing others to be subject to the wrong doing, especially children, the poor, the imprisoned, and others who might not be able to, or might not have the resources to, just get up and leave?

Quote:Q: Why do you feel the need to legislate your non-propertarian system at the national level so that those who disagree with you have no means of escape? What's wrong with implementing at the smaller, local level, where you can do it peacefully, without a civil war, and just permit those who are unhappy with your system to relocate?

You mean like a lot of people did prior to being invaded, ran off of their land, killed, enslaved, etc., having their land taken over, becoming subject to domination, etc.

We are past that, I'm not advocating that we jump in a time machine and do things correctly the first time.

I didn't even say any thing about legislation.

Quote:It's not a big box. Click the hyperlink 'liberty' and you'll see are the generally two camps (see below). As I've said a million times, I belong to the Classical liberal camp, BUT I do respect those who belong to the Social liberal camp and am willing to co-exist and not try to change them.

Liberty:
Classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism. In feudal societies, a "liberty" was an area of allodial land where the rights of the ruler ormonarch were waived.

It attempts to put a name to two broad categories, with an extensive range of ideas within them, and that is just for the view of liberty.

I was talking about libertarianism, and I was talking about attempting to box it into just people who accepted the non-aggression principle and follow a certain, specific, line of political ideology, which is just obviously wrong.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@trulyx, You refuse to answer my questions because there's no way to be specific without revealing how stupid your position is. You keep saying that “I am for violence as long it is in my self-interest”, and I keep asking you for an example, but you cannot find even ONE example time that I have ever advocated violence.

You play games to avoid facing this reality. Here is your current argument: A rapist says “It's purely arbitrary and subjective how much force a woman can use to resist being raped. Some may say she should only scream for help, others may say she should kill me when I attack her. So because there's ambiguity around what use of force is justifiable for self-defense, THEREFORE, it's also ambiguous when it comes to INITIATING force, and if I want to rape a woman, that is fine too.”

That is exactly you're argument. The fact is I have NEVER advocated INITIATING violence against anyone. You can inject heroin in your home, you can spend all your money on whores, you can do whatever you want and I will NEVER send anyone into your home with a gun to force you to live your life the way I want you to. Conversely, every year you guys are passing 100,000 new laws and regulations dictating every aspect of my life and ordering the police to break into my home and shoot me if I ever do something you guys don't like. It is crystal clear which side is INITIATING the force, which one of us is the rapist and which one is the victim. But you try to justify your violence by arguing that since it's subjective when I am entitled to practice self-defense, therefore you can initiate whatever force you want.

However, what particularly exposes your barbaric nature is that I'm a pacifist and I don't want to use force even if it's for self defense. All I'm asking for is that you please let me leave. That's it.

I know I'll NEVER get you club-wielding neanderthals to EVER give up violence since it's so ingrained in your nature. Therefore, my only request is that you please let me leave if your violent ways become too much for me to handle. This means keep your laws at the state & local level, and give me the opportunity to relocate if I can't tolerate your rules. And, if you are so barbaric that you insist on doing everything at the national level, just don't put up barriers to block me from emigrating to escape your laws.

Only the US, North Korea and Cuba put up barriers to block their citizens from leaving. Every other country in the world says “You have to obey our rules only if you voluntarily decide to live in our country. If you don't like it here, you're free to leave, no strings attached, no lingering obligations, we're putting no hurdles in your way.”

I've asked you repeatedly to name one specific policy difference we disagree on and you keep running it from it because you know that in every case it is crystal clear and unambiguous which one of us is INITIATING violence. And I'm such a pacifist that if you come after with me your club, I'm not even going to fight back. All I'm asking is that you let me leave. But, even that one, simple request is too much for a brute like you. You think that because I was born in the US I'm bound to some “contract” that means I'm subjected to you, to do everything you demand my whole life, with no means of escape.

Again, I DARE you to give me one example where we disagree on some policy that is not simply a matter of you being a rapist, club-wielding neanderthal using threats of violence and initiating force against others, while I am asking for you to accept a peaceful alternative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@I and I

I think you're guilty of doing the same thing to the free-marketers that you hate so much when they do to you. They will tell you “Communism has been tried, and everywhere it's failed. Only 2 countries still have a communist economy, N Korea and Cuba, and the people are destitute and miserable. Communism is an unworkable system.” You'll counter and say “But wait, that's only because of some problems with the way it's been implemented. The system can work well if it's implemented properly.”

So how you can then do the exact same thing to the other side?! You're saying the same thing they are, that because the free-market system has resulted in exploitation in a lot of places where it's been tried, therefore the system is unworkable.

I think you're both wrong. BOTH communism and free-market capitalism are perfectly viable systems that can and have worked. For example, the Kibbutz really is a communist system. And the people who live there have done well and been happy. And the Swiss have a free-market system where nobody is subject to 'wage labor', nobody has to work for anybody else, there are no barriers at all to them choosing to work for themselves. And they're doing well and happy.

But, BOTH systems have suffered in problems with implementation, and, in my opinion, BOTH systems have made the same mistakes in implementation, and the solution to FIX both systems is exactly the same.

In BOTH systems, violence is used to force everyone to live by the system. In the communist countries, when some people tried to leave to go to capitalist countries, they closed the borders and killed anybody who tried to escape. In the US, when a lot of intellectuals in the 1950's were trying to form a communist system, the government hauled them off at gunpoint and locked them up (McCarthyism). BOTH systems suffer because so much power is transferred to a central authority that nobody can escape from, instead of keeping the power at the local, more manageable level. In the Soviet Union, all the wealth of the nation was transferred to a small group of men in Moscow. I'm sure in the beginning many of their intentions were pure. But power corrupts, and with such incredible power, and all the riches of a huge country at their disposal, they became completely corrupt and used their power to enrich themselves. In the communist Soviet Union the inequality between the communist leaders and the common man was vast.

In the US, we're repeating the SAME mistakes of the Soviet Union. We've transferred absolute power to a small group of men in Washington. In 2013 with the NDAA, we gave up the rights of habeas corpus, which have been a pillar of civilized society for nearly 1,000 years since the signing of the magna carta. Now, at the sole discretion of the President, he can secretly 'kidnap' anyone off the street and keep them locked up indefinitely with no access to a judicial process or trial, and he even can kill his own people without a trial using drones. link We gave up our right to free speech by letting the central government issue gag orders (see lavabit). We gave up a free press, letting the government arrest reporters. We've created an out of control monster that monitors all our private thoughts and actions, acting with absolute impunity.

But in both cases, I think the solution is to strip the massive, centralized monster of it's power, and return all the power to the local level, where there's natural checks and balances because people can simply move away if the power is abused. I'm totally fine living side-by-side with you, as a communist. You can live in a communist community, I in a capitalist community. I see no reason why we can't be friends, genuinely help each other, trade goods and services, and lead by example, never forcing the other to do it our way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Political Ideology leads to cognitive blindness.

I hear two blind men arguing over the color of an apple.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thomas's post
19-09-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Thomas,

I disagree that I'm stating any political ideology. Rather I follow a simple, clear black & white formula:

When somebody proposes a new law or policy, I ask a simple yes or no question: “When someone refuses to comply will physical force ultimately be used to coerce him into complying, using the clear and obvious meaning of the word (handcuff on the wrist, bullet to the head, etc.)?”

If “no”, then I'm fine with your law because, if it's a terrible law, it will go away organically and won't do much harm.

If “yes”, then just give people the option to move away and escape your law, meaning the law is passed at the state/local level, so there's a relief valve and the potential for harm is contained.

That is the formula I follow 100% of the time. You don't need to ask if I'm left or right, white or black. I promise to follow the rule whether it benefits me and I like it, I promise to follow the rule even if harms me (for example, forcing me to move). You can safely predict my position on EVERY policy issue using that simple formula.

How is that an ideology? What makes you say that it is that left or right?

The debate I have with @Trulyx is that he doesn't want to admit that the formula holds up every time on every issue and that the ONLY time we disagree it boils down to a single black & white issue on the use of force. He likes to suggest it's a really muddy, fuzzy, hard to define situation, and very arbitrary. He won't concede that the only time I disagree with him is when he's initiating physical force to coerce people into doing something against their will, and doing it at the national level to block their escape. I've asked him to find one time when I've ever broken my own rule, and he cannot come up with any examples. So deep down he realizes the difference.

If we could ever get past this point where he accepts what I'm saying and acknowledges the formula I follow, THEN we could have a productive debate about IF it's the right one, or if he's right that force needs to be used at the national level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Thomas,

I disagree that I'm stating any political ideology. Rather I follow a simple, clear black & white formula:

When somebody proposes a new law or policy, I ask a simple yes or no question: “When someone refuses to comply will physical force ultimately be used to coerce him into complying, using the clear and obvious meaning of the word (handcuff on the wrist, bullet to the head, etc.)?”

If “no”, then I'm fine with your law because, if it's a terrible law, it will go away organically and won't do much harm.

If “yes”, then just give people the option to move away and escape your law, meaning the law is passed at the state/local level, so there's a relief valve and the potential for harm is contained.

That is the formula I follow 100% of the time. You don't need to ask if I'm left or right, white or black. I promise to follow the rule whether it benefits me and I like it, I promise to follow the rule even if harms me (for example, forcing me to move). You can safely predict my position on EVERY policy issue using that simple formula.

How is that an ideology? What makes you say that it is that left or right?

The debate I have with @Trulyx is that he doesn't want to admit that the formula holds up every time on every issue and that the ONLY time we disagree it boils down to a single black & white issue on the use of force. He likes to suggest it's a really muddy, fuzzy, hard to define situation, and very arbitrary. He won't concede that the only time I disagree with him is when he's initiating physical force to coerce people into doing something against their will, and doing it at the national level to block their escape. I've asked him to find one time when I've ever broken my own rule, and he cannot come up with any examples. So deep down he realizes the difference.

If we could ever get past this point where he accepts what I'm saying and acknowledges the formula I follow, THEN we could have a productive debate about IF it's the right one, or if he's right that force needs to be used at the national level.

Ideology is not defined or bounded by some left/right dichotomy, but by a rigid set of beliefs.

You have a fundamental belief of opposition to violence by the state. That is an ideology.

The problem with your ideology is that it denies people protection from others.
People whose will includes violence to others must be isolated from others, and that requires force.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 01:58 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Political Ideology leads to cognitive blindness.

I hear two blind men arguing over the color of an apple.

wut.

Ideology is a set of opinions. Having opinions does not lead to cognitive blindness (!).

Having unexamined opinions is problematic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 03:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 01:58 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Political Ideology leads to cognitive blindness.

I hear two blind men arguing over the color of an apple.

wut.

Ideology is a set of opinions. Having opinions does not lead to cognitive blindness (!).

Having unexamined opinions is problematic.

But holding an ideology often (usually?) means accepting unexamined tenets.

But what it always does is bound the solution to any problem within narrow constraints set by the ideology.
That is the cognitive blindness - thinking only within that narrow box.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: