Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 08:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  You stated it just the other day. Drinking Beverage

Would you like to show the class, or shall I?

I never made the claim that I know the minds of other people.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have that problem.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 08:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 08:09 PM)I and I Wrote:  You stated it just the other day. Drinking Beverage

Would you like to show the class, or shall I?

I never made the claim that I know the minds of other people.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have that problem.

At some level, we have no choice but to pitty I&I. The voices in his head tell him the CIA, capitalists, militarily industrial complex, and Jews are out to get him. Some of those voices may have told him what you said as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
21-09-2013, 04:44 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr, you've asked me to define physical force many times, and every time I copy/paste the same thing straight out of the dictionary, and yet the next post you again ask me to define it again. Since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept of 'initiation of physical force' this might help: Go to a policeman and either (a) grab him and hold him down, or (b) punch him, or © handcuff him, or (d) threaten to shoot or tase him if he doesn't do what you ask him to. When he accuses you of initiating physical force upon him, try saying "well it's very vague what force means, and everybody has a different opinion. And besides, it's impossible to tell if I'm the one initiating it. Maybe I'm just acting in self-defense. And maybe it's not coercion. Maybe you wanted to throw yourself on the pavement and slap handcuffs on yourself, so I can't tell if it's coercion or not."

I'll bet that if you asked the typical 10 year old if those things are initiating physical force, he would have no problem answering 'yes'. I seriously can't comprehend how a grown adult, debating in a political forum, cannot comprehend such a basic concept, like "who threw the first punch".

And yet again, you're off on totally irrelavant side points. As I've said SOOOO many times, I'm only (a) talking about INITIATING force for the purpose of COERCING someone to do something against his will, and (b) if you do initiate force, I'm just recommending you provide a means of escape to those who find your force too oppressive, even if that means packing up and moving.

You can come up with a million silly analogies like your drunk driving one. Want a few more? What if a masseuse gives you a deep tissue massage? Is she initiating force when she touches you? What about when two boxers agree to fight in a ring. Should the first one to throw a punch be put in jail for initiating force?
You're "drunk driving" is exactly the same. Obviously if you voluntarily, without duress, sign a contract because it gives you something you want, and in exchange for that consideration you agree to certain obligations and agree to be bound to a court's ruling, it's a purely voluntary arrangement. You are voluntarily AGREEING to have force issued upon you.

Say that you want to fix your car in my driveway and I tell you that it's my driveway, so if you want to use it, you have to abide by rules, which include no smoking, no drinking, and you'll cleanup any oil that spills. Because you want to use my driveway, you sign a contract which states that the fullfillment of your obligations will be determined by the State of Nevada. Sure, if you break the contract, the police will come and arrest you. They will initiate force. Arresting you for driving drunk is obviously initiating physical force. But you agreed to those terms! I'm NOT discussing the enforcement of voluntary contracts, nor self-defense.

Similarly, if any individual or group of individuals, whether a government or private corporation, owns and builds roads and offers to let you drive on them provided you abide by certain rules, like (a) pass a driving test, (b) don't drink with an alcohol contentover .08, etc., etc., and you sign the contract (such as a driver's license contract), fully aware of the obligations it places on you, and you then break those rules, sure, the police will initiate force upon you. I'm not disputing that in any civilized society we expect law enforcement to enforce voluntary contracts. That's not coercion. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign the contract to get a driver's license. Or, just build your own road, or drive around your own property. You can do doughnuts around your farmhouse, drunk out of your mind, and I don't think law enforcement would bother you.

Where it becomes coercive initiation of force is if you're subjected to it against your will. If I'm worried that you'll hurt yourself driving drunk around your farm, so I get a law passed that says nobody can be drunk even on their own private property, (or nobody can get stoned in their home, etc.) THEN it becomes coercion because you didn't agree to it. It was forced upon you. And, so if you're going to pass such a law, my request is very simple: do it at the local level. Sure, maybe you and your neighbors think it's wreckless to drive drunk on your private property and you want it forbidden. Why does this need to be a national law? What if in some redneck towns that's their favorite pastime? Why can't you be content to peacefully co-exist with them, not force your opinions on them. Just pass the laws locally. Does it really bother you so much that somebody 1,000 miles away is doing something you don't like, so you feel the need to make your law universal, imposed on everyone, with no means of escaping your rule because the jurisdiction is the whole nation, covering every square mile of land where you have permission to live?

I've had this exact debate with so many on the left. It always goes around and around like this, but every once in a while, someone will finally concede the pink elephant in the room and say: "This needs to be a national law because those ignorant people cannot be trusted to decide how they live their lives. I'm smarter than them. My ways are right, their ways are stupid. I need to save them from themselves, save them from their own stupidity." Once they come to realize that it is an elitist, intolerant attitude that is driving their insistence on making all their laws universal, then every once in a while they turn around and agree to put the club down and join libertarians, letting other people live their lives the way they want and not being engaged in constant battle trying to change them, while they're also trying to change you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 06:26 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Are you ignoring the fact that there are things that need to be legislated at the national or even international level?

An example is environmental laws. You aren't allowed to dump toxins in a river or release radiation into the atmosphere because the effects aren't local.

And there is product liability law. And patent law. There are many things that simply aren't local.

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
21-09-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Also, the more uniform law is across a particular jurisdiction the easier it is to comply with the law and to do business. Uniformity yields concrete productivity improvements and increased economic growth.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, you've asked me to define physical force many times, and every time I copy/paste the same thing straight out of the dictionary, and yet the next post you again ask me to define it again. Since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept of 'initiation of physical force' this might help: Go to a policeman and either (a) grab him and hold him down, or (b) punch him, or © handcuff him, or (d) threaten to shoot or tase him if he doesn't do what you ask him to. When he accuses you of initiating physical force upon him, try saying "well it's very vague what force means, and everybody has a different opinion. And besides, it's impossible to tell if I'm the one initiating it. Maybe I'm just acting in self-defense. And maybe it's not coercion. Maybe you wanted to throw yourself on the pavement and slap handcuffs on yourself, so I can't tell if it's coercion or not."

Your definition is all well and good so far as it goes.

(I guess you didn't get the joke, either. In physics, force is that which causes a mass to accelerate, thus, all force is physical - you see?)

It is inadequate. Do you not realize this? All of the examples I brought up, which you ignored, were cases of very compelling coercion without body to body physical contact.

I will make the question very, very simple: what about cases where one person violates another's rights without initiating physical force as you define it?

I am just asking you what you think. That is unrelated to what I may think. If you wish to know what I think, feel free to ask me, instead of reading nonsensical conclusions into what I have posted.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'll bet that if you asked the typical 10 year old if those things are initiating physical force, he would have no problem answering 'yes'. I seriously can't comprehend how a grown adult, debating in a political forum, cannot comprehend such a basic concept, like "who threw the first punch".

I'm asking you about situations where neither person throws a punch.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And yet again, you're off on totally irrelavant side points. As I've said SOOOO many times, I'm only (a) talking about INITIATING force for the purpose of COERCING someone to do something against his will, and (b) if you do initiate force, I'm just recommending you provide a means of escape to those who find your force too oppressive, even if that means packing up and moving.

I'm asking you about coercive actions that do not involve personal physical contact.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You can come up with a million silly analogies like your drunk driving one. Want a few more? What if a masseuse gives you a deep tissue massage? Is she initiating force when she touches you? What about when two boxers agree to fight in a ring. Should the first one to throw a punch be put in jail for initiating force?
You're "drunk driving" is exactly the same. Obviously if you voluntarily, without duress, sign a contract because it gives you something you want, and in exchange for that consideration you agree to certain obligations and agree to be bound to a court's ruling, it's a purely voluntary arrangement. You are voluntarily AGREEING to have force issued upon you.

That does not appear to address anything.

In bringing up drug laws you bring up someone who grows marijuana for personal use. That is fine. Such a person is extremely unlikely to cause harm to anyone.

Because I am curious as to your opinion in less clear-cut situations, I mentioned drunk driving (not as an analogy, but literally as itself), as an example of a situation where one may harm others.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Say that you want to fix your car in my driveway and I tell you that it's my driveway, so if you want to use it, you have to abide by rules, which include no smoking, no drinking, and you'll cleanup any oil that spills. Because you want to use my driveway, you sign a contract which states that the fullfillment of your obligations will be determined by the State of Nevada. Sure, if you break the contract, the police will come and arrest you. They will initiate force. Arresting you for driving drunk is obviously initiating physical force. But you agreed to those terms! I'm NOT discussing the enforcement of voluntary contracts, nor self-defense.

Hitting someone while driving drunk is obviously initiating physical force.

Why Nevada?

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Similarly, if any individual or group of individuals, whether a government or private corporation, owns and builds roads and offers to let you drive on them provided you abide by certain rules, like (a) pass a driving test, (b) don't drink with an alcohol contentover .08, etc., etc., and you sign the contract (such as a driver's license contract), fully aware of the obligations it places on you, and you then break those rules, sure, the police will initiate force upon you. I'm not disputing that in any civilized society we expect law enforcement to enforce voluntary contracts. That's not coercion. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign the contract to get a driver's license. Or, just build your own road, or drive around your own property. You can do doughnuts around your farmhouse, drunk out of your mind, and I don't think law enforcement would bother you.

I'm aware the process. I was only asking you a question: what rules would you wish to see, were you in a position to choose? That's all. It's a very simple question.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Where it becomes coercive initiation of force is if you're subjected to it against your will. If I'm worried that you'll hurt yourself driving drunk around your farm, so I get a law passed that says nobody can be drunk even on their own private property, (or nobody can get stoned in their home, etc.) THEN it becomes coercion because you didn't agree to it. It was forced upon you. And, so if you're going to pass such a law, my request is very simple: do it at the local level. Sure, maybe you and your neighbors think it's wreckless to drive drunk on your private property and you want it forbidden.

I know how much you dislike defining your own keywords, but just to clarify: you are using coercion to mean compulsion or pressure one did not agree to, yes? Personally, I don't think that's quite sufficient; having agreed to follow rules, I don't think the enforcement of those rules then ceases to be coercive. Having consulted several dictionaries, they admit of both interpretations. "lol dictionary" is therefore not a constructive response.

The impetus for such laws, generally speaking, is unrelated to self-harm. It is related to the capacity to harm others.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Why does this need to be a national law?

Why does anything become law?

A majority of representatives, on behalf of a plurality of citizens, support it.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  What if in some redneck towns that's their favorite pastime? Why can't you be content to peacefully co-exist with them, not force your opinions on them. Just pass the laws locally. Does it really bother you so much that somebody 1,000 miles away is doing something you don't like, so you feel the need to make your law universal, imposed on everyone, with no means of escaping your rule because the jurisdiction is the whole nation, covering every square mile of land where you have permission to live?

I wasn't aware I had that kind of power.

If someone 1000 miles away is doing something which may harm others, I feel that there is some moral obligation to see if there might be anything done about it; if a majority of citizens of our joint jurisdiction agree, something might well be done about it.

I reiterate a point you don't seem to have understood: local government is no less arbitrary and corruptible than national government.

(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I've had this exact debate with so many on the left. It always goes around and around like this, but every once in a while, someone will finally concede the pink elephant in the room and say: "This needs to be a national law because those ignorant people cannot be trusted to decide how they live their lives. I'm smarter than them. My ways are right, their ways are stupid. I need to save them from themselves, save them from their own stupidity." Once they come to realize that it is an elitist, intolerant attitude that is driving their insistence on making all their laws universal, then every once in a while they turn around and agree to put the club down and join libertarians, letting other people live their lives the way they want and not being engaged in constant battle trying to change them, while they're also trying to change you.

You are full of yourself. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that your mischaracterization of me is entirely correct. Let's see -
(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm smarter than them. My ways are right, their ways are stupid.
Describes your views fairly succinctly, no?

That is a very disingenuous characterization besides, applicability notwithstanding. If one believes oneself to be correct (note: all people believe themselves to be correct) then it necessarily follows that they would wish others to act as such (ie, in the 'correct' way). So they might well try to bring that about. Such as, say, by voting.

Let us also suppose that the large majority of human beings (shall we say 95%, after your proud tradition of just making numbers up?) are generally decent people, who wish to maximize freedom and minimize harm. To that end they are prepared to use force, if it is absolutely necessary (which is to say, in their view, there is no other way to bring about a positive end).

And we see, once again, that the only difference between you, me, or anyone, is in what is considered necessary.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
21-09-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(21-09-2013 06:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you ignoring the fact that there are things that need to be legislated at the national or even international level?

An example is environmental laws. You aren't allowed to dump toxins in a river or release radiation into the atmosphere because the effects aren't local.

And there is product liability law. And patent law. There are many things that simply aren't local.

If you don't like it, you're free to leave.

The Earth.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2013, 05:53 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(21-09-2013 04:44 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, you've asked me to define physical force many times, and every time I copy/paste the same thing straight out of the dictionary, and yet the next post you again ask me to define it again. Since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept of 'initiation of physical force' this might help: Go to a policeman and either (a) grab him and hold him down, or (b) punch him, or © handcuff him, or (d) threaten to shoot or tase him if he doesn't do what you ask him to. When he accuses you of initiating physical force upon him, try saying "well it's very vague what force means, and everybody has a different opinion. And besides, it's impossible to tell if I'm the one initiating it. Maybe I'm just acting in self-defense. And maybe it's not coercion. Maybe you wanted to throw yourself on the pavement and slap handcuffs on yourself, so I can't tell if it's coercion or not."

I'll bet that if you asked the typical 10 year old if those things are initiating physical force, he would have no problem answering 'yes'. I seriously can't comprehend how a grown adult, debating in a political forum, cannot comprehend such a basic concept, like "who threw the first punch".

And yet again, you're off on totally irrelavant side points. As I've said SOOOO many times, I'm only (a) talking about INITIATING force for the purpose of COERCING someone to do something against his will, and (b) if you do initiate force, I'm just recommending you provide a means of escape to those who find your force too oppressive, even if that means packing up and moving.

You can come up with a million silly analogies like your drunk driving one. Want a few more? What if a masseuse gives you a deep tissue massage? Is she initiating force when she touches you? What about when two boxers agree to fight in a ring. Should the first one to throw a punch be put in jail for initiating force?
You're "drunk driving" is exactly the same. Obviously if you voluntarily, without duress, sign a contract because it gives you something you want, and in exchange for that consideration you agree to certain obligations and agree to be bound to a court's ruling, it's a purely voluntary arrangement. You are voluntarily AGREEING to have force issued upon you.

Say that you want to fix your car in my driveway and I tell you that it's my driveway, so if you want to use it, you have to abide by rules, which include no smoking, no drinking, and you'll cleanup any oil that spills. Because you want to use my driveway, you sign a contract which states that the fullfillment of your obligations will be determined by the State of Nevada. Sure, if you break the contract, the police will come and arrest you. They will initiate force. Arresting you for driving drunk is obviously initiating physical force. But you agreed to those terms! I'm NOT discussing the enforcement of voluntary contracts, nor self-defense.

Similarly, if any individual or group of individuals, whether a government or private corporation, owns and builds roads and offers to let you drive on them provided you abide by certain rules, like (a) pass a driving test, (b) don't drink with an alcohol contentover .08, etc., etc., and you sign the contract (such as a driver's license contract), fully aware of the obligations it places on you, and you then break those rules, sure, the police will initiate force upon you. I'm not disputing that in any civilized society we expect law enforcement to enforce voluntary contracts. That's not coercion. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign the contract to get a driver's license. Or, just build your own road, or drive around your own property. You can do doughnuts around your farmhouse, drunk out of your mind, and I don't think law enforcement would bother you.

Where it becomes coercive initiation of force is if you're subjected to it against your will. If I'm worried that you'll hurt yourself driving drunk around your farm, so I get a law passed that says nobody can be drunk even on their own private property, (or nobody can get stoned in their home, etc.) THEN it becomes coercion because you didn't agree to it. It was forced upon you. And, so if you're going to pass such a law, my request is very simple: do it at the local level. Sure, maybe you and your neighbors think it's wreckless to drive drunk on your private property and you want it forbidden. Why does this need to be a national law? What if in some redneck towns that's their favorite pastime? Why can't you be content to peacefully co-exist with them, not force your opinions on them. Just pass the laws locally. Does it really bother you so much that somebody 1,000 miles away is doing something you don't like, so you feel the need to make your law universal, imposed on everyone, with no means of escaping your rule because the jurisdiction is the whole nation, covering every square mile of land where you have permission to live?

I've had this exact debate with so many on the left. It always goes around and around like this, but every once in a while, someone will finally concede the pink elephant in the room and say: "This needs to be a national law because those ignorant people cannot be trusted to decide how they live their lives. I'm smarter than them. My ways are right, their ways are stupid. I need to save them from themselves, save them from their own stupidity." Once they come to realize that it is an elitist, intolerant attitude that is driving their insistence on making all their laws universal, then every once in a while they turn around and agree to put the club down and join libertarians, letting other people live their lives the way they want and not being engaged in constant battle trying to change them, while they're also trying to change you.

To take the thread back, the point of me starting this thread was to question the differences between certain political, ideological views. I'm questioning whether certain ideologies, especially the ideologies requiring something being imposed on society, are rationally justified, or completely irrational and arbitrarily and credulously accepted, subsequently imposed on society, without being justified, and without having some sort of rational basis? Ultimately, I'm hoping to get a better understanding of, whether certain ideologies are actually justified differences, or if they are nonsensical assumptions that make ideologies, in general, a complete sham, and if everyone truly aspired toward wisdom, would such ideological differences exist at all?

The idea that [frankksj] brought up (something he implied that he accepted, but as of now, I'm totally confused), and that I was addressing, was a principle based on physical force and/or the initiation of that force, especially the appointing of the responsibility and authority of defense/protection to a state (institutions of law and force/enforcement) with that as a basis. That, as a case, would involve a person initiating force again another (for example, a person assaulting another), and the police, at whatever point, having that authority to use force/violence against the person who initiated force. That case/ideology would be obviously in support of the use of force/violence (by certain individuals under certain circumstances); that case is also, until shown otherwise, completely arbitrary.

What [frankksj] has denounced, maybe hypocritically, and something that [Chas] and [cjlr] seem to be implying that they accept--at the least, have brought up--is the idea of extending [authority of defense/protection to a state] to include other actions/protection from actions outside of [initiation of physical force]. And that extension is something that would also require a basis, and one that is rational, not arbitrary.

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
23-09-2013, 03:28 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
There are a number of political views in different countries. But, Most of them are created by themselves to to their survival.

Buy professional food storage catering containers in a range of shapes & sizes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@trulyx,
Say you have a town where the speed limit is 45 mph, enforced by a camera 100% of the time. OR, you have a town where there's no posted speed limits. The cops will write you a ticket, if, in their sole discretion they think you're driving too fast, and each cop has a different opinion, and the cop's opinions change over time so they make that determination on a case by case basis.

According to you the town with 45mpg is "arbitrary", and the other town is not! Sure, the 45mpg speed limit is arbitrary. But it's applied consistently, and the results are clear and predictable: If you drive 46 mph, you WILL get a ticket. Every time.

The same thing with this debate. The libertarian position is that we don't like to force people to do things against their will. So, all "classic" libertarians, whether they're far left like Noam Chomsky or far right like Ron Paul, whether it's 1880, 1980, or 2080, are entirely predictible on all key issues: Consistently opposing all laws that force people to do or stop doing things, such as laws banning drugs, banning gay marriage, etc. It's like the 45mph speed limit.

With liberals, however, there is no rule. It's just decided on a case by case basis. In the 1970's liberals thought gays were an abomination that should be locked in prison along with all the stoners. Now most of them have rethought the laws against gays, but not all, most are slowly starting to see that the ban on marijuana has been a total disaster, taking kids out of college and sending them to prison, doomed to a life of poverty. But cocaine, however, liberals generally want banned, even though stasticially it's less addictive and harmful than alcohol, which they don't want banned. However at one point in the past it was the other way around and they banned alcohol, and cocaine was a common food additive, like in Coca Cola. There's no rhyme or reason. Every liberal has a different opinion about when to force people to do things and when to let them have free will, and this changes over time.

And you say libertarians are "arbitrary" for saying we ALWAYS favor letting people exercise free will, and liberals are not arbitrary because they have no rules to guide their actions and make the rules up as they go? Bizarre definition of "arbitrary".

Morality is, of course, purely subjective, and you cannot prove it. But the fact is no human likes being forced to do something against his will. The libertarian position is "I don't like it when you do it to me, so I won't do it to you." The non-libertarian position is "I'll send the cops to tase you if you don't do what I tell you to do because I know best how you should live your life and am saving you from yourself."

I am SOOO over the silly distractions over semantics. Imagine if I did it to liberals:
"What do liberals believe?"
"Foremost we want an equal distribution of wealth"
"Define wealth"
"Money"
"So you don't mind if all the stocks and bonds are concentrated in one place, as long as the currency is equally distributed?"
"No, I'm referring to all items of value."
"Well beauty is valuable, so if you want equality in beauty I guess you want to throw acid on all the pretty girls' faces?"
"No, I'm referring to negotiable instruments."
"So, non-negotiable derivities don't apply."
"Yes, they apply, they're monetary instruments."
And this goes on for 12 pages. Is debating over symantecs useful? Isn't it better to ask useful questions like "Why do you think equal distribution of wealth is important?" "How are you going to redistribute it without disincentivizing it's creation?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: