Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@cjlr, it's probably pointless to keep asking you specific questions since you favor abstract statement that can be interpreted many different ways, giving you the ability to waffle on position. But I'll try anyway.

Quote:[The golden rule is] insufficient, since not all people want the same thing.

Q: Give me a specific name and/or culture of someone that does NOT want free will (ie someone that does not object to being forced to do something against his will)?

My experience is that people who balk at the golden rule like this, denying that 'free will' is a universal desire, are simply those who like depriving others of their free will.

Obamacare: Here in the US the biggest fight (and the pending government shutdown tomorrow) is over Obamacare, which forces everyone to buy mainstream health care from a US insurance company. It's tied to the tax code, so even an American who lives and works, say, in Canada, pays into the Canadian tax and health care which covers his medical costs no matter where in the world he is visiting, including the US, is required by Obamacare to make a 'donation' of around $600/month to one of the major for-profit US health insurance companies that funded Obama's campaign.

And even if they tied Obamacare to residency instead of citizenship, the fact is that just as some people believe in creation instead of evolution, some believe in faith-medicine instead of traditional modern medicine.

Q: Should people be allowed to opt-out of Obamacare, provided they're willing to eliminate the moral hazard by signing a waiver to the law that requires doctors to provide medical care regardless of a person's ability to pay?

Q: How would you like if the faith-based medical advocates outnumbered you and required everyone in your country to donate to a 'faith-based medical' program?

Q: If you would oppose it, how can you deny that American liberals are violating the golden rule and the original position by forcing it on others?

Every self-proclaimed American liberal I know defends Obamacare saying that if everybody is forced to pay into the system, including those who don't want it and won't ever use it, it will make health insurance more affordable for them, so they favor sacrificing some individuals' free will for their benefit.

I could, of course, do the same thing. I spend a lot on cars, so I would benefit greatly from a law that required everyone, including those who don't drive, to buy car insurance. But, I would vote against such a law regardless because it violates the golden rule, and the original position.

Q: What “rule” are American liberals using to decide if Obamacare is moral or should be overthrown?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(29-09-2013 10:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-09-2013 05:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  1. Capitalism from it's beginning up to today has been all about force when it comes to getting a working population to work and submit.

2. Capitalism from it's beginning up to today has always been about the few owners of capital working in conjunction with government and using government as a tool to implement their power over the working class.

If you feel I am mistaken then please point out any time in capitalisms history where both of these were not taking place.

I and I, when Hong Kong practiced it's experiment in free-market libertarianism in the 60's-90's, millions of people fled communist China to reach Hong Kong. Are you seriously saying people were fleeing from "freedom" to become "slaves"? Why were none of the "slaves" in Hong Kong immigrating to China where they could enjoy "freedom"?

It's an old trick to make up a fake 'battle' between capital and labor. I started a business several years ago. I sold my home and assumed huge debt to get the business going, and worked in the business 100+ hour weeks for several years without a break. Was I "capital" or "labor"? At one point when money got really tight, I offered the employees to take some of their pay in stock instead of cash. Most took advantage of that. Are they "capital" or "labor"? And later I took on an investor who bought shares for cash. He's obviously "capital", but why do you say he's on the opposite side of the "laborers"? Weren't the laborers doing the same thing, effectively donating cash (in the form of reduced salary) to buy equity in the business? If the investor's interests were contrary to the "laborers", why were the "laborers" so thrilled to have an investor come on board so they could again take a full salary? Some of the "laborers", however, preferred to continue with a reduced salary in exchange for equity. Capital and labor are NOT opposing teams in a free market capitalist system, they are both on the same team struggling for the same goals. If an investor, say a doctor, works hard for decades and lives modestly so that he has extra income to invest in start-up business, his "capital" _IS_ his "labor". They are one and the same. In life we all have choices to make to balance risk vs. reward. Some prefer the security of collecting a regular paycheck and will give up own equity in business. Some are all about taking on risk to have more in the future and will invest everything they made from previous labor, or put in new labor ("sweat equity") to own a stake in a business. Others balance this and collect salary + stock. In a business, you have a group of people working together towards one goal, and they all put in what they have, some have capital, some have labor, some have both.

I watched a youtube video of a communist, Michael Albert, discussing "wage labor". It was so laughable how totally ignorant he was. First he argued that mine workers (in the US) were working for minimum wage because they had no other choice. Uh, hello, the average starting salary for a mine worker with NO education or skills is $70,000/year plus benefits and early retirement. That's almost 5x what a fast food laborer makes, who gets no benefits. The mine workers obviously made a decision to endure grueling labor because they made so much money, and mine companies had to offer 5x the salary of other manual labor. If they were "forced" to work in the mines by "wage labor", then this is saying that the mining companies COULD have paid them minimum wage, but, for no reason, generously paid them 5x what was necessary. ROFL. Then he said that doctors would be willing to work for minimum wage because it's such an easy job, but the reason they don't is because ALL the medical schools in the world (which are often private, for-profit companies) formed a conspiracy and jointly decided to give up the chance to make lots of money by admitting as many med students as they could, and the reason they colluded was to keep the admissions artificially low so there would be a shortage of doctor's so they could charge what they want. So the for-profit universities gave up money to help students. ROFL. And they managed to keep this conspiracy a total secret, so that out of ALL the med schools in the world, NOBODY has ever spoken of this secret conspiracy. And, btw, how did the med schools keep out otherwise eligible students, and why aren't these students who were denied admission complaining? Did the med schools kill off student applicants too? What he doesn't take into account is that, to be a doctor, requires investing 12 years of education and residency before you even start to make any money, and then another 8 years or so before you've paid off your student loans and can start enjoying a nice lifestyle. So, at age 40, the mine worker will have already made $1.4 million and be approaching retirement, and the doctor will be just getting started. Doctors have to get a large salary not because of some conspiracy, but because that's the only way to justify investing 20 years into education and paying off student loans!

Whatever issue you have with some other guy making statements, you should take that up with him. As far as mine workers, what country was being talked about and how were these averages figured? Name one company that pays a guy 37,000 a year to work in a mine in the US. All you have to do is name one. I will be waiting.

Corporations develop software to spy on people.
Corporations spy on people for the US government.
Corporations make weapons that kill people.
Corporations bribe governments into policies that push people to war.
Corporations can own and operate prisons now.
Corporations make shitty food that they make addicting and succeed in getting people addicted to shitty food.
People from the corporate sector often go into politics and help manipulate governments and use governments as a tool to enhance corporate control.

Before the US overthrew democratically elected marxist Salvador Alliende, IBM and other corporations were pressuring the US government to do something about Alliende. http://books.google.com/books?id=S5jQCM4...de&f=false

You don't seem to acknowledge any of the facts I just mentioned, you go on in some fantasy land where corporations are good but they keep getting corrupted against their will by some entity known as the government.

By the way, who are the people that make up "the government" Aren't they mostly former corporate people or they are heavily funded (bribed) by corporations?

Corporations use force as noted by adam smith in the creation of a working class. And they continue to use governments to implement corporate control.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Franksj

Are you aware of the history of the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala?

In the 50's again a marxist is elected into power, the largest business in the country was agriculture. United Fruit company, a corporation was notorious for physical abuses, neglect for workers health, and low pay. United Fruit Company (now known as chiquita) had a strong lobbying group for the US and the CEO of United Fruit company juuuuuuust happened to be the brother of the head of the CIA. All this is on Wiki and any other simple google search.

Anyway, of course stopping the corporation from abusing and exploiting people in guatemala was just sooooo horrible right? So the U.S. then overthrows the elected guy then installs a dictator that then of course allows the United Fruit Company to do whatever it wants in the country just like before the communist guy was elected.

The idea that corporations don't use force is a fucking joke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(30-09-2013 06:42 PM)I and I Wrote:  Name one company that pays a guy 37,000 a year to work in a mine in the US. All you have to do is name one. I will be waiting.
Quote:USAToday says the average pay for a mine worker is $64,000/year. I just googled for 'mining companies' at random, and found Hendricks and called and asked for HR. They won't give any specific salaries, but did confirm their miners make more than $37,000/year.

[quote]
People from the corporate sector often go into politics and help manipulate governments and use governments as a tool to enhance corporate control.

Agreed, 1 million %.

[quote]
Before the US overthrew democratically elected marxist Salvador Alliende, IBM and other corporations were pressuring the US government to do something about Alliende. http://books.google.com/books?id=S5jQCM4...de&f=false

I agree it's a horrible tragedy and we need a system of government that prevents corporations from running the government.


Quote:You don't seem to acknowledge any of the facts I just mentioned, you go on in some fantasy land where corporations are good but they keep getting corrupted against their will by some entity known as the government.

Uh, what facts haven't I acknowledged? I acknowledge everything you said in this post, and don't disagree with any of it. I've said many times, corporations, like governments, are simply groups of individuals. Some are good, some are evil. I've been saying all along I strongly disagree with the current system that corporations are given special rights and privileges. We're all humans, we're all equal.

Everything you said about corporations spying on us, killing people, etc., I agree with 100%. I think that they should be held accountable and forced to pay damages. Microsoft should be brought into court and taken down for the fraud they committed by violating their own privacy rights and handing over data to the NSA. The problem is that the government protects them.

I think you and I agree on the issue, the only thing we're disagreeing on is the solution. My proposed solution is to start by stripping the federal government of the power to pick winners and losers, and push those decisions to the local level, so the federal government's role is not to decide who 'wins', but to ensure the rules are played fairly. Sure, local governments can still be corrupt and help corporations, but at least then if they commit fraud, there's a higher court you can sue them in (ie the federal court).

What is your proposed solution? Most communists say the solution is more of the problem--transfer MORE power to the government to pick winners and losers. They may change the word 'corporation' to 'state-run enterprise', but it's only a name change. It's still the same thing. It's still a group of individuals running the enterprise, and, as long as the government has the power to pick winners, they'll pick their friends in enterprise who reciprocate. So what is your SPECIFIC solution to solve the problem, now that I gave you mine?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:Anyway, of course stopping the corporation from abusing and exploiting people in guatemala was just sooooo horrible right? So the U.S. then overthrows the elected guy then installs a dictator that then of course allows the United Fruit Company to do whatever it wants in the country just like before the communist guy was elected.

The idea that corporations don't use force is a fucking joke.

You're contradicting yourself. You said 'the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected guy', but then conclude by insisting that corporations don't use force. My observation is that, at least in developed countries, corporations do NOT use force DIRECTLY; they always get the government to do it for them. Blue Cross Health Insurance Company doesn't send their OWN employees to your home with guns to force you to buy their product against their will. They pay politicians to get government to do it for them.

I answered your questions, so please answer mine:

Q: What corporation in a developed country has ever themselves directly used violence to force people to buy their products?

I can't think of one instance. They always get the government to do it for them. And that's why I favor a system of government that doesn't let that happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:31 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Trulyx,

You started this thread asking the differences between political views. One difference I think is apparent is that you can ask a libertarian any question at all about his views and he'll answer it directly, and if he can't, then he'll reconsider his views. Can you come up with any question that I won't answer?

By contrast, when you ask liberals questions that challenge their views, they run away. Look at all the hundreds of questions I've asked liberals, and I can't get them to answer ANY of them. Cjlr invited me to ask his for opinion, and I have asked a ton of questions, and he won't answer them. See my post yesterday, I asked tons of questions, here's just a few:

Quote:Which political system will let you live the way you want and exercise your free will? Why is there so much insistence that there's no difference between a system with lots of autonomous local jurisdictions serving up a plethora of political options vs. a single nationwide jurisdiction that everybody must conform to? ... Besides, if you REALLY believe that there's ZERO effects from concentrating power, why stop at the national level? Why not elect one person to rule the whole planet and give him absolute control to make laws, act as judge, jury and executioner if you really think there's no difference between dispersing authority and concentrating it?

No liberals would touch ANY of my questions. This morning I asked 5 short, basic questions. No liberal will ever touch those either, or any of the hundreds I've asked before.

Here's a question for you. Do you now accept that libertarianism isn't really a place on the political spectrum, but rather the belief that "Whether I'm conservative or liberal, left or right, it's just an opinion, and we all have them. So I'm going to do everything I can not to force other people to do things my way. I will respect everyone's free will." Given the choice between (a) voting for a President or Congressman who thinks and acts like I do and who will get laws passed to make things work the way just the way I want which I think is in everyone's best interest, or (b) voting for someone who is completely the opposite from me in every way and whose world view I find ridiculous, like Ron Paul, BUT, who commits not to force anybody to do anything against their will and to shift the power back to the local jurisdictions so we can all choose our home based on a smorgasbord of political ideologies, many of which I strongly despise. I always choose (b). That's a uniquely libertarian trait. I challenge you to find, for example, one left-wing liberal who endorsed a right-wing conservative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
01-10-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(30-09-2013 11:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, I think you got what I meant.

I consider morality to lie mostly in an action's consequences, but I'm not willing to say it lies only in an action's consequences.

No, that is why I asked.

That just brings us back, almost, to where we were originally.

What, then, is your basis?

(30-09-2013 11:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Everybody's reasoning ultimately rests on subjective precepts. Humans are wired towards certain moral tendencies; there are some readily discernable patterns, yes, but the variation is significant.

For any given situation, reasoning from first principles, as it were, would seem to be less arbitrary than applying a conclusion reached elsewhere.

What is the variation?

What do you mean by "first principles" versus "a conclusion reached elsewhere"?

What are you using?

(30-09-2013 11:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Rights are what we agree to acknowledge in each other as a basis for mutual interaction.

Integrity of one's person is usually considered the most fundamental. Which is to say, don't be going around beating, raping, and murdering. To defend that right is to be prepared to prevent someone who is so inclined from doing so. On an individual level this is self-defence. On a communal level this is law enforcement. And so on, with rights to property (or more generally access to resources), freedom of expression, association, movement...

Recognizing the status of other people and their property necessarily restricts my own freedom of action (implicitly: I have a right do do what I want, so long as I not infringe on the rights of others). Their is a cost-benefit to any of this. Determining, as a group, what the specifics should be - well, you know.

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?

If you are accepting rights as determined in an inconsistent, random and/or arbitrary way by individual and collective action, are you saying slavery, genocide, terrorism, torture, and similar actions, are justified and legitimate? And saying that those things, where they are justified and legitimized, the institutionalization of those things is also justified and legitimate?

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
01-10-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(29-09-2013 07:47 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I agree that we're talking past each other because I'm focusing on specific solutions and not abstract thoughts. But, this is after all the 'politics' forum, not the 'philosophy' forum, and it's my understanding that politics is supposed to be about practical, real-world solutions to the problems we have.

The part I'm frustrated by is that instead of debating which political system is best it seems even basic, simple and indisputable statements meet so much resistance. These concepts are REALLY basic. If you had the choice of going to 2 restaurants: The first has one item on the menu; chicken liver. Don't like it? Tough, you have no alternatives. The second has hundreds of items including vegan, asian, steak, fruit, etc. Which restaurant will better let you eat the way you want and exercise your free will? Isn't it obvious?

Now say there's 2 political systems. The first one has only one jurisdiction, one set of laws that everybody must follow. Don't like it? Tough, you have no alternatives. The second system has hundreds of local jurisdictions covering the whole range of the political spectrum including communist, capitalist, socialist, religious, etc. Which political system will let you live the way you want and exercise your free will? Why is this not equally obvious? Why is there so much insistence that there's no difference between a system with lots of autonomous local jurisdictions serving up a plethora of political options vs. a single nationwide jurisdiction that everybody must conform to? What if you were born into a country like Saudi Arabia that practiced Sharia law and anybody who questioned Mohammed was hanged in the square because that's what 70% of the population wants, but one town in the North with 10% of the population was predominantly secular. You seriously are saying you don't see any difference between letting local jurisdictions decide their own laws so the secularists can live the life they want vs. one nationwide system that everybody has to conform to which publicly executes the secularists? Besides, if you REALLY believe that there's ZERO effects from concentrating power, why stop at the national level? Why not elect one person to rule the whole planet and give him absolute control to make laws, act as judge, jury and executioner if you really think there's no difference between dispersing authority and concentrating it?

We should be discussing the pros and cons of the libertarian system of local jurisdictions vs. the more traditional system of concentrating all the power in one central authority. The libertarian's goal, whether he is liberal is conservative, is to make sure that everybody can exercise free will, so we SHOULD be able to agree that the libertarian system DOES allow people to exercise free will. It's also a simple concept that by dispersing the power you minimize the risk of a tyrant getting too much power. Given that all major manmade tragedies, except pollution, have come from too much concentrated power, why can't we agree that this also goes on the 'pro' side. You also said that local jurisdictions can be just as oppressive as national ones. Of course I agree, and will even concede local jurisdictions, with less diversity, can be even more oppressive. The difference is with local jurisdictions you have some checks and balances, presuming at the national level there's a constitution that guarantees the national government will defend basic human rights, including freedom of movement, and putting some limits on what the local jurisdictions can do. If all the power is concentrated at the national level, where's the checks and balances? When, for example, the US government went on a witch-hunt of communist sympathizers in the 1950's, even executing people for “treason” because they were left-wing, where were the checks and balances since it was done at the national level? Sure, if power was dispersed to local jurisdictions some may have passed their own anti-communism laws, but as long as the federal government ensured communists were free to relocate and form their own community, that's a safety valve.

Naturally, no system is perfect. There are 'cons' to local jurisdictional control. One obvious one is externalities (ie when one jurisdiction pollutes another). Also, theoretically local jurisdictions lack the economy of scale of one central authority, although I'd argue that in the real world, the most efficient countries, like Switzerland, are the ones with the most decentralized control, and the least efficient, like North Korea, are the ones with the most concentrated control.

IMO a political discussion should be debating the pros and cons to see which system works better. But this debate is useless because I can't get concessions that there are ANY pros to the libertarian system, even the most obvious one like its accommodation of free-will, leads to denial and distracting side-tangents, like semantics debating what constitutes 'force' and other abstract concepts.

That is a bag full of fallacies. That is a problem.

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
01-10-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(01-10-2013 09:20 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  That is a bag full of fallacies. That is a problem.

You always do that when I post something that hits home. You don't list anything specific. You don't provide any evidence or logic to refute anything I said. You just dismiss the whole thing. Why do you run from specifics? If you state something I think is wrong, I quote it exactly, explain my views and provide links substantiating my position. You just cover your ears and say "I'm not listening".

You also, predictably, refused to answer the simple, direct question I asked you in my previous post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(30-09-2013 07:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's a question for you. Do you now accept that libertarianism isn't really a place on the political spectrum, but rather the belief that "Whether I'm conservative or liberal, left or right, it's just an opinion, and we all have them. So I'm going to do everything I can not to force other people to do things my way. I will respect everyone's free will." Given the choice between (a) voting for a President or Congressman who thinks and acts like I do and who will get laws passed to make things work the way just the way I want which I think is in everyone's best interest, or (b) voting for someone who is completely the opposite from me in every way and whose world view I find ridiculous, like Ron Paul, BUT, who commits not to force anybody to do anything against their will and to shift the power back to the local jurisdictions so we can all choose our home based on a smorgasbord of political ideologies, many of which I strongly despise. I always choose (b). That's a uniquely libertarian trait. I challenge you to find, for example, one left-wing liberal who endorsed a right-wing conservative.

You have a problem with "free will" and respecting it. For one, "free will" really doesn't exist, and it is probably, completely the wrong term to use for what it is you are trying to describe. And also, respecting a person's will, includes respecting their will. If a person wants to kill another, steal from another, etc., and can, allowing them to do so is respecting their will. Allowing a person, who wills to do so, violate the will of others, is respecting their will. Stopping them from violating the will of others, is violating will.

To answer your question, which I have continually answered over and over again: "Do you now accept that libertarianism isn't really a place on the political spectrum?"

No, it is on the political spectrum. http://aethelreadtheunread.files.wordpre...thaxes.gif

It is in opposition to authoritarianism.

Someone like Ron Paul is just inconsistent and/or ignorant, when it comes to his views. He ran for president on an idea that was not libertarian but more federalists; and an anti-aggressive foreign policy, which is likely the only positive aspect. The ideas people like him support are anti-federal/national intervention. It is only, directly or indirectly, without some sort of separate movements, which he doesn't have, a support of neo-liberalism and really both public and private tyranny.

Saying, for example, which is federalist arguments not libertarian arguments, that there should not be a strong federal/national goverment, that should actually attempt to uphold the Constitution by acknowledging the only positive powers granted to uphold liberty, justice and resist tyranny, oppression, etc., on behalf of the whole of the people of the US, is just absolute absurdity.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: