Differences in political views.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:different people have different moralities.

Most moral systems are based on the same foundations: be kind, be fair, be reciprocal. This is an evolutionary and neurological basis for this. There is nonetheless a wide vareity of shading.

It's absurd to expect "liberals" to have one set of "rules".

But here's the key difference. The libertarians do have one core rule: respect everybody's right to free will. As you pointed out, morality is very subjective, and everybody has a different idea of what it means to “be kind” or “fair”. Therefore, libertarians advocate a system where everybody is free to live in a community or system that reflects their views on what is moral. The issue I have with liberals is those that say “MY line in the sand, MY morality, is the right one, now I am going to force EVERYBODY to live by MY moral code.” Even if I personally have the same moral code, I feel it's wrong to force it on others. I have yet to debate one issue with a liberal where it did not boil down to them wanting their “moral” law to be universal, so everybody was forced to follow it, and I want to constrain it to a local jurisdiction, so people have a choice.

As I said before “We can pick, say, the top 20 policy issues that liberals disagree with libertarians on, and in every case that is the issue”. Nobody's been able to identify one actual policy disagreement that doesn't boil down to respecting other's free will, their right to disagree.

Quote:After all, and as we all know, libertarians never disagree about anything ever, nor change their minds about anything.

If you ask somebody if they believe in eminent domain, and the person says “No, it's wrong for one group of people to take something from others by force”, 99% of the time that person will identify as libertarian, and you can safely predict their views on monetary policy, tax policy, foreign policy, and just about all other policies. Whether it's a right-wing guy like Ron Paul, or somebody on the opposite side of the political spectrum, they will agree on virtually everything. As far as changing their minds, what key national policy issue have libertarians every flip-flopped or waffled on? Name one, please.

Quote:Because yet again apparently "liberals" are responsible for literally everything, I guess...

Actually, I said the blame is shared between liberals and conservatives because they both believe in using force to coerce people into doing things against their will, and sometimes they make a bad decision, but because it's being forced on everybody, there's no 'safety valve'. I've challenged you to find one significant man-made tragedy over the past 100 years (besides pollution) that did NOT boil down to liberals and/or conservatives initiating force (violence) to coerce people. If you cannot come up with one exception, then you're conceding that liberals' and conservatives' use of force IS responsible for all those tragedies. And this also means that over the next 100 years, it's likely that all the future man-made tragedies will also be caused by liberal's and conservatives' use of force.

Can you come up with one tragedy in human history that was caused by libertarians' refusal to initiate force and grant everyone free will?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr, let's settle this with a real world example. Why don't you pick one national policy which you disagree with libertarians on, and tell me what your view is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2013, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 09:11 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(01-10-2013 12:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Which brings us back to “it's impossible to be specific without specifics”.

I'm pretty sure I already answered that.

It was very specific and you have yet to answer.

It is specific to ask when you make a decision, how are you coming to that conclusion, and so far, you have not been specific enough for me, but I'd say any person, to see how you are coming to a conclusion without being random, etc.

Quote:See for yourself.

That is variation is systems used as foundations, and not even for morality, it is more for cultural norms, manners. You are dealing with a group of people who are not really scientists and philosophers. The one guy does a lot of work analyzing political groups (e.g. Tea party, "liberals") for example. Trying to figure out why the Tea party is the Tea party and not OWS, is completely different from what I'm doing.

That (link) is begging the question, maybe attempting an answer (a different way)-- that is the one I'm raising with this thread.

I'm asking you for your foundation, but in the question, to which that was a response, I'm asking for specific differences, not broad differences in foundation. Do you not see how that is question begging? I'm denying certain conclusions, from certain foundations, and I'm taking the position that those conclusions and/or foundations are irrational and/or nonsensical, for the sake of the original post/thread.

The question was for an example where you have justifiable variance, which is still, basically, the original post/thread.

Quote:It's the difference between “X is always right/wrong” and “is X right/wrong in this specific instance”, where X is any action one might take.

(I find it extremely hard to believe that you need me to tell you this)

So you would rather me waste my time forming men of straw to burn down? It must be okay for me to do that, while ol' frank can't get a pass.

I don't see a difference in a principle versus X is wrong in this specific instance.

See laws, and homicide/killing versus murder. You are doing things by definitions. A murder under law, for purpose of law, is usually defined specifically as a wrongful killing. A certain form of killing, due to defined circumstances, is always wrong; however, killing, in general, is not always wrong.

A basis for saying when killing is wrong and not wrong, as opposed to being completely arbitrary and random, would be nice, especially if you want to have a society following such principles.

You, at least, need a theory to be judged.

(01-10-2013 09:17 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Are you, then, saying that rights are, and ought to be, inconsistent, random and/or arbitrary?

Are you saying that rights should only be determined by individual and collective actions toward other individuals and/or collectives? Or do you think there is a basis from which rights should be determined?

No, yes, yes. But the questions are very poorly framed.

Rights in theory are meaningless. Rights in practice depend on society. The basis for an individual to determine what rights ought to be recognized is in their own morality (see above). The basis for a society to recognize rights is in what individuals, collectively, can agree upon (I could've sworn I mentioned that).

That is circular and/or nonsensical/contradictory.

Their own morality, doesn't even make sense. You have a view of what is moral. I don't have my own gravitation; I either accept the general theory of relativity or something else, and I could either be correct in description or completely inconsistent with reality.

If people in different sets have a different set of rights, that will make the answer to the first question, yes. If the, "basis for a society to recognize rights is in what individuals, collectively, can agree upon", that means there are different sets of rights; unless, of course, you are saying that people, part of different sets, will always reach the exact same conclusions, making them consistent, but that (view) is obviously not consistent with reality.

Also, the basis for society, would have to be separate; that was part of my question. It doesn't make sense to say their basis for determining is their process for determining. There is either no basis, only a process, or a basis and the process, as I was asking if there was a basis to use in/(as part of) the process.

Quote:Wut. That's a hilariously dishonest and leading pair of questions...

If a group of people decide slavery, genocide, terrorism, torture, and similar actions are justified and legitimate then that means that group of people decided that slavery, genocide, terrorism, torture, and similar actions are justified and legitimate. And? Point being what, precisely?

Any given person has their own ideas of what is and what ought to be. Individuals disagree. Society is what they do agree on.

If you accept that rights can be determined only by social contract alone--social contract is a set of (rules, morals, laws, etc.) that people agree on, based on others agreeing on them--then there is no basis, by admission, for you to look at actions like slavery, genocide, terrorism, etc., which can be a very, extremely stable part of social contracts (see: America), to denounce such actions as wrong.

You can certainly verbally or emotionally oppose certain actions, as I can believe in god, Santa, Earth as flat and center of the solar system, intelligent design, 2+2=183, etc., there is just absolutely no basis off of which to say the actions are not right.

Rights imply right. They imply that something is justified, permitted, legitimate, moral, an entitlement, etc. If the basis for right, is what people collectively recognize as right, then a group who collectively recognizes different rights, is saying that what others accept as right is, at least as far as that group is concerned, right.

That is why there was a reason for the Rights of Man, declarations of rights and independence, etc. There is a reason why natural rights, as an idea, "all men created equal" and "inalienable rights" came out of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Otherwise, there is no basis for republicanism. Republicanism, is almost, at default, automatically tyrannical and/or any thing else, specifically aristocracy and monarchy, is automatically justified.

That last part ("Society is what they do agree on") doesn't make any sense.

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
05-10-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(01-10-2013 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  No, just pick what you consider the most egregious claims, and let's reach a conclusion.

In the past, others have dismissed my posts as 'straw man' arguments, but I then counter with rebuttals and questions, and the other side backs down and refuses to respond. You can see that @cjlr copied several points in my post and said they're straw man arguments, but then I followed up with specific questions, and he ran, and instead changed the subject.

So, pick an egregious claim, give me a chance to respond and substantiate it, and when I do, don't just run away. This is supposed to be a place to debate.

For example, from that post, originally, leading to this, you were trying to distract and pull the conversation back to solutions that you specifically want to talk about, separate from the thread.

In what you said, it doesn't follow that philosophy is not a substantial part of politics, and other things should be discussed, namely what you want to discuss. Actually, to the contrary, in order to even have any discussion, philosophy automatically plays a role.

You then brought up examples, which were also irrelevant to the discussion, that created a false type of dilemma. It doesn't follow that because you can take random, comparable things, and compare them, that the result is the end all be all or go to solution. You need a basis for comparison, first; however, even with a basis for comparison, you can't assume that is a correct basis, and you also have to keep in mind that you are not limited to just those things being compared. That is why that is a whole bundle of mess.

As an example, there was a time where there was an extremely good argument for slavery, on a certain assumed basis, and that probably even extends, in some ways, to today; however, you wouldn't automatically say that justifies slavery, just because practically, with certain assumption, against something else, slavery supporters can take an argument.

I think, especially in the way you have described "liberalism", there is an example of not accurately describing a position, and I think what has already been posted, stands. There isn't much more you can say, when someone generalizes or falsely equates something with a false description, other than it is a generalization and/or straw man. The problem was you took mistakes or descriptions of "liberals" that maybe applied to certain people/groups, then you generalized it (purposefully or not) and falsely equated it with an entire ideology (you attempted the same, in a different way with libertarian beliefs), subsequently arguing against that false version of liberalism. You also have presumed that certain people held views, that they did not hold.

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
05-10-2013, 10:26 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@trulyx, I asked you to pick a specific egregious claim I made and give me a chance to respond and substantiate it. I don't see anything specific in your recent post that I can respond to.

Also, I think that we got in the weeds anyway. When I use the term 'classic liberal' or 'libertarian' or 'liberty', I simply mean it in the original sense of the latin word 'liber'. Namely free. Let everyone exercise their free will. Don't use force to coerce people into doing things against their will. And, given that society is adamant on using force, find a mutually agreeable solution to constrain the force and limit the possible damage, such as making the laws at the local level and letting people leave if they're too burdensome. What generally drives this view is the acceptance that no matter how strongly I believe in something, I could be wrong, and others may be right, so I'm not going to force them to do it my way, just as I ask them not to force me to do it theirs.

By contrast, today's liberals and conservatives are so 100% certain that they are right and that they know everything, that they want their rules passed at the national level, so nobody can escape, and enforced at gunpoint, to save people from themselves.

It's ironic that your signature line is: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” Because that's really the essence of what I'm saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr, I earlier asserted the only time you and I would ever disagree on a political policy is if you were using threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their free will. You balked at this. So, I have repeatedly asked you to state one political policy you disagree with libertarians on and suggested we discuss it. You've repeatedly run from the challenge, presumably because my original assertion is correct. But then you go post negative 'reputation' on me for even challenging you like this. WTF. If, at the start of the discussion you genuinely were unaware the only difference between us over allowing people to exercise free-will, and during the course of the debate you came to accept it, then you should be thanking me for helping you understand your own position better--not attacking me because in the end I actually knew more about your beliefs than you did.

Besides, you invited me to ask you about your political beliefs. You told me not to put words in your mouth, and to ask what you believe, and committed to respond. But when I've done just that, and asked you to pick one policy and explain your position, you refused. If, by asking you questions, you get so far backed into a corner that the only thing you can do is run away, shouldn't that be a wakeup call to open your mind a bit? Why not even consider the possibility that there ARE peaceful, voluntary ways to accomplish our goals without resorting to threats of violence and coercion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: