Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 11:00 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @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?"

Your speed limit analogy is simply stupid, as is your cartoon characterization of liberals.

My political view is that we have individual rights but we live in societies. We trade some amount of personal freedom for services from that society. Politics is the negotiation of that trade, laws are the result of the negotiation. Unjust laws are those that have only the protection or perpetuation of state or ruling class as their basis, just laws protect the individual.

The system is as imperfect as the humans who create it and adjudicate it; we continue to work to make progress on living together.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-09-2013, 04:27 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Just Googled "political spectrum" got a slew of bright colorful charts making quite contradictory points. Something that fits with my world view are the charts on http://www.politicalcompass.org
Also there are some very curious, almost unbelievable quotes from famous people.

Their analysis puts Obama and Romney close on the chart, well in the right/authoritarian spectrum. Along with every other significant world leader. They put these folks well to the right of Hitler, I guess it would depend on how you define "right" and how you define Hitler.

Gore Vidal said something to the effect that we live in a militarized republic -- he may have also said we have one political party with two right wings.

It certainly strikes me as a peculiar kind of insanity for people to think Obama is a liberal or a socialist etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(24-09-2013 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your speed limit analogy is simply stupid, as is your cartoon characterization of liberals.

Sure, but it seems to be all he can respond to.

(24-09-2013 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  My political view is that we have individual rights but we live in societies. We trade some amount of personal freedom for services from that society. Politics is the negotiation of that trade, laws are the result of the negotiation. Unjust laws are those that have only the protection or perpetuation of state or ruling class as their basis, just laws protect the individual.

The system is as imperfect as the humans who create it and adjudicate it; we continue to work to make progress on living together.

Shit, it's almost like I've heard that one before.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

Yep. Like the laws protecting property rights, self-integrity, and communal resources. How dare they!

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  With liberals, however, there is no rule. It's just decided on a case by case basis.

This is called rationalism.

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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.

I'm'a need a citation on all those wild claims.

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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".

Applying the same rules regardless of circumstance is arbitrary. Attempting to analyse each situation as necessary is not arbitrary. That is the standard definition.

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Morality is, of course, purely subjective, and you cannot prove it.

I agree.

What is it that makes yours better, again?

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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."

Ludicrous mischaracterisation.

(24-09-2013 10:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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?"

That would, in fact, be perfectly valid. It is called examining beliefs. That's something that can happen during a discussion. One cannot make statements without qualifying them; an undefined philosophical statement is meaningless. Notwithstanding that no person ever endorsed all the attitudes you ascribe to your straw man.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 06:39 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(24-09-2013 06:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 11:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  My political view is that we have individual rights but we live in societies. We trade some amount of personal freedom for services from that society. Politics is the negotiation of that trade, laws are the result of the negotiation. Unjust laws are those that have only the protection or perpetuation of state or ruling class as their basis, just laws protect the individual.

The system is as imperfect as the humans who create it and adjudicate it; we continue to work to make progress on living together.

Shit, it's almost like I've heard that one before.

Well, of course you have. It's the only basis for government that is rational and ethical. Yes

A better link.

David Hume Wrote:... by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-09-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Where are we making progress on living together? (Well, maybe gay rights and only because it doesn't cost the ruling class - $$$$ ?)
Where does anyone have a government that is rational and ethical? (Sen. Sanders isn't able to do it all by himself.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(25-09-2013 07:26 AM)andrewboston Wrote:  Where are we making progress on living together? (Well, maybe gay rights and only because it doesn't cost the ruling class - $$$$ ?)
Where does anyone have a government that is rational and ethical? (Sen. Sanders isn't able to do it all by himself.)

Are you I&I's twin brother? You seem to have purposely misconstrued what I said.

I said " It's the only basis for government that is rational and ethical."

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-09-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
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." (Some liberals and libertarians meet there) The vast majority of conservatives don't get the "so I won't do it to you" part.

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." (Most conservatives, middle of the road and "Left")

For most people: I know what is right for me--how dare you tell me what to do. I know what is right in general--don't you do: x, y, or z.

What a different world this would be if people had a clue what prison was like and if people were very cautious about victimless crimes? No and no in the real world, more run by emotion than reason.

Right wing and authoritarian are the middle of the road.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 02:22 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Ok, if you're disagreeing with my assertion in the speed limit analogy that libertarians follow a set of rules, like a code of ethics, which are applied consistently and predictably, then prove me wrong. When has a 'classic libertarian', who claims adherance to the non-aggression principle, violated the basic rule that they avoid depriving one of free will, and if the ruling political party is going to force people to do something against their will, those laws need to have a limited jurisdiction so people are free to move if they find them too burdensome? If you can't find exceptions to the rule, then my analogy about libertarians holds, right?

And if you're disagreeing with my assertion that liberals make up their own rules and define their own morality on a case by case based on what they feel is right at the moment, then please explain to me what rules, or code of ethics, liberals were following in these cases:

EUGENICS:
Back in the 1920's American liberals said, just like @Chas, that we must be willing to "trade some amount of personal freedom" for society. Like the rich can be denied their free will if redistribution of their wealth benefits the greater good. A man's home can be taken (eminent domain) for something that benefits society. A man's life can be taken by force (such as a military draft) to protect others. And, since low IQ parents are scientifically proven to tend to produce low IQ children who are more likely to be a burden on society, then it's appropriate to remove inferior individuals from the gene pool since it benefits society as a whole. They were forced to "trade some amount of personal freedom (ie to procreate) for the greater good. Do you agree with all those positions, which liberals have advocated? If you find the last one particularly troubling, gven that it lead to the Holocaust and all, what "rule", or objective test, is it that you liberals follow which should have identified that last law as being a bad idea? Why is denying a man his balls substantially worse than denying him his life and home? Remember science backs up the claim; heredity is proven to play a significant role in intelligence, and thus removing inferiors from society's gene pool was for the greater good. And leading intellectuals of the day were quite in favor of it. The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Eugenics. So what went wrong? If liberals do have a "rule" they follow, and don't just decide on a case by case basis what is an appropriate denial of free will, then why didn't they follow that rule? Do you dispute that if they followed the libertarian's creed to respect everybody's right to exercise free will that whole mess would have been avoided?

TRANSPORTATION: I wrote a post about how the US was the leader in public mass transit in the 1920's, with the fastest high speed trains in the world, every town with a population over 2,500 had a metro (electric light rail). But then the liberals believed that it was for the greater good to free the people from dependency on public transit, which at the time accounted for 90% of all trips. So they effectively ordered all the Metro systems destroyed and nationalized passenger rail, and subsidized the automobile (taxpayer funded initiatives like the New Deal to build roads and highways, and many other programs like cash for clunkers to get Americans to buy cars). In hindsight, was that such a good idea? Are we better off now that we have a nation entirely dependent on oil and cars? If not, what is the "rule" liberals should have followed to limit the damage? Do you dispute that if politicians the libertarian system this wouldn't have happened? If not, why?

EGYPT: The secular Egyptians in the North risked everything in their revolution to have a democracy, hoping to be a modern democratic country like Turkey. But, when they organized their government they put all the power at the national level, and the fundamental Islamists in the South got 51% of the vote and put in power a government that was starting to implement Sharia law. The secularists in the North felt disenfranchised and, since they had the support of the military, organized a military coup, and have now banned the Islamist fundamentalists from participating. However, since the fundamentalists hold the slight majority, this is expected to lead to civil war and much blood shed. So, a couple years ago when they were crafting a new constitution, what kind of government could they have put in place to avoid the violence? Do you have a better solution than restricting the government's power to coerce to the local level so the fundamentalists and secularists could live side by side in peace? And don't say that "in this case" they'd have been better off to have a system of local autonomous rule because you can't change the rules to the game only after you lost. You can't say that because the islamists won the winner takes all political system, THEN they should go back and change the rules. You can only agree upon the rules up front, before you know the outcome to the game.

DRUGS:
Do you agree that many liberals are opposed to the legalisation of cocaine? What is the "rule" that liberals are following to reach that conclusion given that scientifically speaking alcohol is more addictive and damaging than cocaine? Also, do you agree that 30 years ago a lot more liberals were opposed to the legalization of marijuana? If so, why did their view change over the years if they're following a "rule" or "code of ethics"? Why did their view on gay marriage change? Can you find one example at any point in history when a classic libertarian has been in favor of a national ban on drugs or gay marriage?

If you can't find examples where libertarians are "breaking their rules", or where liberals are following rules, then how can you dispute my analogy is correct? Note that I'm not saying here that the libertarians rules are right or better. In this post I'm simply arguing that libertarians do follow consistent, predictable rules or codes of ethics, and liberals do not. Prove me wrong, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Geez, this fake frankiej is still going. I thought he might have died by now.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: