KimberlyAnn wrote:Oh, and I'm glad, Book of Mormon, that you're not into the Randian stuff any more. It's so cultish, in my opinion.
KA
As in James Randi?
You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!
-
_Mercury
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Mercury wrote:KimberlyAnn wrote:Oh, and I'm glad, Book of Mormon, that you're not into the Randian stuff any more. It's so cultish, in my opinion.
KA
As in James Randi?
Ayn Rand.
I never found it too cultish. But then again, I was pretty much the only one spouting off about her ideology where I was living at the time. And this was before the internet so I couldn't really meet like minded people too much. Some guy gave me Atlas Shrugged when I was about 15, and when I was 15 it made a lot of sense to me. Anywhoha... I enjoyed reading her and don't think poorly of those that still find her ideology compelling.
I was a nut though. Although I was more interested in liberty (essentially anarchy) then anything else.
-
_DonBradley
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am
KimberlyAnn wrote:I knew you couldn't stay off this thread, Don Bradley!
What was that limerick I wrote about you and your on-line quarrels...?
At any rate, I agree with you about maintaining our Western culture. I'm getting less silly by the minute, aren't I?
Oh, and I'm glad, Book of Mormon, that you're not into the Randian stuff any more. It's so cultish, in my opinion.
KA
I think you're quite reasonable, KA, every time you agree with me. (for what it's worth, I think you're quite bright and generally incisive in your arguments.)
I hope I didn't swing too hard on the Scouts thread, which I am leaving, along with most posting, for a break. I do, obviously, think you're wrong there. But I think much of the difference is not in our reasoning styles so much as in the fact that we are using different sets of information. My information apparently seems suspect to you; and I'm not really sure what your information sources are, other than, likely, a steady supply of anecdotes through such venues as RfM--which I find suspect, at least compared with large-scale random samples.
That said, until fairly recently I probably would have been much more inclined to agree with you. But I've read a number of things, from a variety of perspectives, that seem to hone in on the same aspects of human nature and the same problems with contemporary American culture; and these have profoundly affected my view of the ideas that more choice is necessarily better, that traditions and expectations are stifling, and that Mormonism and religion generally are deletorious to human well-being.
Don
-
_Ren
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am
Mercury,
For me, Ghandi.
I beleive he was the greatest Libertarian in history.
As far as I'm aware, he held no 'official' leadership position within any state. Hopefully, this meets the requirement of 'without the trappings of a Statesman'.
barrelomonkeys,
Yeah. I think it does! It's good we got to this point - the way we were butting heads and not understanding why sometimes was stressing me out.
As I said elsewhere - I wanna save the real disagreement for those who really deserve it! :)
It's interesting that you term it as 'fussing at you' though...!
I feel like a stalker now... :/
Heh - probably ;)
I can see the point, but I wouldn't be convinced of the injustice. Assuming that this minority:
1. Have the right to vote in X years, and attempt to kick out said goverment.
2. Have the right to 'opt out' of society, and remain living somewhere in the 'general area' on their own terms.
3. Have the right to leave the state, and find another state to live in (That will take them, and is more acceptable to their pallette).
I believe in positive rights like 'right to food', or the 'right to shelter', or the 'right to health care'. A minimum standard of living.
However, I do not beleive in positive rights like the right to 'a modern car', or 'a nice, big house', or 'cable TV'. If your not willing to play by the rules society has decided in relation to ownership, then I guess you'd better lean to produce all these things yourself (including all the programmes you are intending to watch on your hand-built TV!). Because life owes you none of these things. And whilst society CAN provide you with such luxuries, why would it be sensible to see society as something you 'take from', but don't 'give back to' and 'compromise over'...?
A person owns their own body. Without quivication, and without debate. (Again, for me). They also have a 'God'-given right to some area of land that they can call home, and where they can live. They have a 'God'-given right to food. To shelter. To good health.
Past that, I don't beleive people have innate 'rights' to ANY form of possesssion. Possession is a system that is agreed by society. And I don't think the minority have the right to force anything upon the majority when it comes to how that society will handle the issue of 'possession'. (Past the positive rights I've already mentioned...)
The can try and change the system with a vote. Or they can opt-out. Or they can move to a new state. But to try and hard-tie the democratically agreed ownership systems of a society with potential 'civil rights violations' doesn't ring true to me.
The fact that you OWN a house, or a TV, or a car, or a large plot of land is something 'worked out' between you, and the people around you.
I don't beleive you are born with some 'innate' right to X, Y and Z possession. You can't just point to things and say 'That's mine. And that, and that...' -and expect anybody else to take you seriously based only on the fact that you've stated it as such. You can however - of course - point to your own body and say 'That's mine! Because of course, it is, and no other person, nor any state has any moral right to interfere with that particular form of ownership.
This idea that Libertarianism has to be about 'small goverment' also doesn't ring true with me.
To me, the ideal size of a Libertarian goverment is: As big a goverment as the people democratically decide it to be! And as long as - no matter how 'big' the goverment may become, it - without fail - gives it's people the chance to vote them out every 'X' years.
Or in other words, no matter what size of goverment, it is always held directly accountable by it's people.
You call it the flux of American politics.
I'd call it the flux that is bound to happen in any political system that has embraced the ideal of democracy. Which of course America has.
Having a democratic system in place is the biggest step towards Libertarianism any state can take. Once that step is taken, I think the direction will always tend to be in a Libertarian one. (Again, refering back to the 'feedback loop' I talked about earlier...)
I don't know of many democratic communist states. I don't belevie they are mutually exclusive ideals - they can theoretically co-exist for me. They just don't tend to, or at least they don't last long. And I believe there is a reason for that...
Phew! It's nice to find something we agree on!
*In Borat voice* High five!
Don,
Not sure - I'd have to know a bit more about him to make a judgement. I'm more aware of his religious views than his political views.
I do know that he defends the Bush administration a lot. That kinda makes me suspicious...! :)
From your second-from-last post Don, I get the feeling we are quite closely aligned - politically. You seem to be saying things which I beleive, but I've never quite learned how to properly articulate...!
The area where I would want what might seem like 'radical' reform is the 'War on Drugs'. That really grates against my Libertarian ideals - as well as being very damaging and ineffective in my eyes. And I don't' see enough 'progress' here.
But there aren't honestly many other issues in the Western world where I'm unhappy with the 'general direction'... Some things I may want to move faster, but I think things should fall 'like a ripe apple', rather than being forced. I see that as quite a fundemetnal Libertarian ideal - and also why I see the idea of spreading democracy 'down the barrel of a gun' as such a tragically misguided one.
Mercury wrote:So who in history would you say, ROP/Book of Mormon, is the most famous individual to hold the ideals of a true Libertarian without the trappings of a Statesman?
For me, Ghandi.
I beleive he was the greatest Libertarian in history.
As far as I'm aware, he held no 'official' leadership position within any state. Hopefully, this meets the requirement of 'without the trappings of a Statesman'.
barrelomonkeys,
barrelomonkeys wrote:I can't believe you've been fussing at me for months about NOT being a Libertarian when we weren't working with the same definition. That explains sooo very much!
:D
Yeah. I think it does! It's good we got to this point - the way we were butting heads and not understanding why sometimes was stressing me out.
As I said elsewhere - I wanna save the real disagreement for those who really deserve it! :)
It's interesting that you term it as 'fussing at you' though...!
I feel like a stalker now... :/
I think that is accurate. Is that why you get in a tizzy when I say Libertarians here (and I mean in the US) are full of people that are social Darwinists?
Heh - probably ;)
Well I would see it differently. I would say that if the minority was forced into communism by the majority that this would be an infringement on their rights.
I can see the point, but I wouldn't be convinced of the injustice. Assuming that this minority:
1. Have the right to vote in X years, and attempt to kick out said goverment.
2. Have the right to 'opt out' of society, and remain living somewhere in the 'general area' on their own terms.
3. Have the right to leave the state, and find another state to live in (That will take them, and is more acceptable to their pallette).
I believe in positive rights like 'right to food', or the 'right to shelter', or the 'right to health care'. A minimum standard of living.
However, I do not beleive in positive rights like the right to 'a modern car', or 'a nice, big house', or 'cable TV'. If your not willing to play by the rules society has decided in relation to ownership, then I guess you'd better lean to produce all these things yourself (including all the programmes you are intending to watch on your hand-built TV!). Because life owes you none of these things. And whilst society CAN provide you with such luxuries, why would it be sensible to see society as something you 'take from', but don't 'give back to' and 'compromise over'...?
A person owns their own body. Without quivication, and without debate. (Again, for me). They also have a 'God'-given right to some area of land that they can call home, and where they can live. They have a 'God'-given right to food. To shelter. To good health.
Past that, I don't beleive people have innate 'rights' to ANY form of possesssion. Possession is a system that is agreed by society. And I don't think the minority have the right to force anything upon the majority when it comes to how that society will handle the issue of 'possession'. (Past the positive rights I've already mentioned...)
The can try and change the system with a vote. Or they can opt-out. Or they can move to a new state. But to try and hard-tie the democratically agreed ownership systems of a society with potential 'civil rights violations' doesn't ring true to me.
The fact that you OWN a house, or a TV, or a car, or a large plot of land is something 'worked out' between you, and the people around you.
I don't beleive you are born with some 'innate' right to X, Y and Z possession. You can't just point to things and say 'That's mine. And that, and that...' -and expect anybody else to take you seriously based only on the fact that you've stated it as such. You can however - of course - point to your own body and say 'That's mine! Because of course, it is, and no other person, nor any state has any moral right to interfere with that particular form of ownership.
This idea that Libertarianism has to be about 'small goverment' also doesn't ring true with me.
To me, the ideal size of a Libertarian goverment is: As big a goverment as the people democratically decide it to be! And as long as - no matter how 'big' the goverment may become, it - without fail - gives it's people the chance to vote them out every 'X' years.
Or in other words, no matter what size of goverment, it is always held directly accountable by it's people.
That's actually what I most admire about the constant flux of politics in America is that it's the constant back and forth of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
You call it the flux of American politics.
I'd call it the flux that is bound to happen in any political system that has embraced the ideal of democracy. Which of course America has.
Having a democratic system in place is the biggest step towards Libertarianism any state can take. Once that step is taken, I think the direction will always tend to be in a Libertarian one. (Again, refering back to the 'feedback loop' I talked about earlier...)
I don't know of many democratic communist states. I don't belevie they are mutually exclusive ideals - they can theoretically co-exist for me. They just don't tend to, or at least they don't last long. And I believe there is a reason for that...
Well I agree with that
Phew! It's nice to find something we agree on!
*In Borat voice* High five!
Don,
DonBradley wrote:by the way, would Christopher Hitchens be considered libertarian, or libertarian-leaning, in the UK?
Not sure - I'd have to know a bit more about him to make a judgement. I'm more aware of his religious views than his political views.
I do know that he defends the Bush administration a lot. That kinda makes me suspicious...! :)
From your second-from-last post Don, I get the feeling we are quite closely aligned - politically. You seem to be saying things which I beleive, but I've never quite learned how to properly articulate...!
The area where I would want what might seem like 'radical' reform is the 'War on Drugs'. That really grates against my Libertarian ideals - as well as being very damaging and ineffective in my eyes. And I don't' see enough 'progress' here.
But there aren't honestly many other issues in the Western world where I'm unhappy with the 'general direction'... Some things I may want to move faster, but I think things should fall 'like a ripe apple', rather than being forced. I see that as quite a fundemetnal Libertarian ideal - and also why I see the idea of spreading democracy 'down the barrel of a gun' as such a tragically misguided one.
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
Yeah. I think it does! It's good we got to this point - the way we were butting heads and not understanding why sometimes was stressing me out.
As I said elsewhere - I wanna save the real disagreement for those who really deserve it! :)
Well it was stressful for me as well. For a number of reasons. Mostly that I no longer have the mindset I did when I was younger and it was odd just thinking about it and exploring those issues. Also it was extremely frustrating that we were talking past each other and not recognizing it. Think of all the time we could have spent talking about music instead!
It's interesting that you term it as 'fussing at you' though...!
I feel like a stalker now... :/
No! But it was funny as I was typing up my 2 sentences at MAD on Libertarianism I had a hunch you'd be responding. And you did within moments. It was sorta cute. You're dependable. :D
Well I would see it differently. I would say that if the minority was forced into communism by the majority that this would be an infringement on their rights.
I can see the point, but I wouldn't be convinced of the injustice. Assuming that this minority:
1. Have the right to vote in X years, and attempt to kick out said goverment.
2. Have the right to 'opt out' of society, and remain living somewhere in the 'general area' on their own terms.
3. Have the right to leave the state, and find another state to live in (That will take them, and is more acceptable to their pallette).
Do we need to define Communism? ;) Are you talking about a pure Communist state?
Let me respond to you without invoking any particular style of government. If elections are held and the winning party passes legislation then I have no issues with that.
I believe in positive rights like 'right to food', or the 'right to shelter', or the 'right to health care'. A minimum standard of living.
As a (US) Libertarian I would have disagreed with you. Vehemently.
However, I do not beleive in positive rights like the right to 'a modern car', or 'a nice, big house', or 'cable TV'. If your not willing to play by the rules society has decided in relation to ownership, then I guess you'd better lean to produce all these things yourself (including all the programmes you are intending to watch on your hand-built TV!). Because life owes you none of these things. And whilst society CAN provide you with such luxuries, why would it be sensible to see society as something you 'take from', but don't 'give back to' and 'compromise over'...?
I agree with this... then and now.
This idea that Libertarianism has to be about 'small goverment' also doesn't ring true with me.
Well that's why we've been talking past each other for months.
To me, the ideal size of a Libertarian goverment is: As big a goverment as the people democratically decide it to be! And as long as - no matter how 'big' the goverment may become, it - without fail - gives it's people the chance to vote them out every 'X' years.
Or in other words, no matter what size of goverment, it is always held directly accountable by it's people.
Hmm.. well I don't really see it that way. I don't view the government the same as the bureacracy. Libertarians in America want to slice and dice the bureacracy and service sector of the government.
That's actually what I most admire about the constant flux of politics in America is that it's the constant back and forth of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.You call it the flux of American politics.
I'd call it the flux that is bound to happen in any political system that has embraced the ideal of democracy. Which of course America has.
Having a democratic system in place is the biggest step towards Libertarianism any state can take. Once that step is taken, I think the direction will always tend to be in a Libertarian one. (Again, refering back to the 'feedback loop' I talked about earlier...)
Okay. I have to do it and know I'm not being snotty when I say it, but America is not a democracy. America is a Republic. I view democracies as flawed because majority does rule and you do have tyranny of the majority. The early founders of America saw democracies as dangerous tyrannies and put in checks and balances to ensure a little frustration in the process. That's why I find it so fascinating to observe.
-
_Ren
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am
barrelomonkeys wrote:Think of all the time we could have spent talking about music instead!
Heh - exactly! I've learned that 'Blink 182' does not represent California punk. But past that I still need quite a bit of education... ;)
But it was funny as I was typing up my 2 sentences at MAD on Libertarianism I had a hunch you'd be responding. And you did within moments. It was sorta cute. You're dependable. :D
Heh! Your learning my 'buttons' I see... Cunning...
Do we need to define Communism? ;)
Well, hopefully we don't need to define it, but you can produce 'the' definition if you feel I'm getting it wrong.
Are you talking about a pure Communist state?
As in everybody agrees, beleives and / or wants to be 'involved' in Communism?
Or do you mean the attempted 'implementation' by the goverment is 'pure' As in 'full on - no holes barred'?
Or is it neither of the above?
I'm tempted to respond to what I 'think' your asking, but probably best if I wait for you to clarify before moving on...
As a (US) Libertarian I would have disagreed with you. Vehemently.
On the notion of positive rights - period? Or just my interpertation of them?
Hmm.. well I don't really see it that way. I don't view the government the same as the bureacracy. Libertarians in America want to slice and dice the bureacracy and service sector of the government.
Hmmm - ok. So the 'bureacracy' and 'service' sectors are 'integrated parts' of the US goverment? Is that right?
You'll have to forgive my ignorance of how this all fits together in the US, but could you describe in a bit more detail how these different sectors work? What powers they have (or are meant to have), how they are directed (or how they are meant to be directed) etc. - from your point of view at least?
In the UK, we have the 'public' and 'private' sectors. But it get's messy. Currently, we have some parts of the NHS being 'privatised', but still (apparently) under 'public' direction. Just to give you an idea of some of the issues here...
I don't know if the parallels are accurate though...
Okay. I have to do it and know I'm not being snotty when I say it, but America is not a democracy. America is a Republic.
Ahh - thank you. You know what? I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about things like the constitution and how that relates to democracy. But (if I'm getting this right) you've just explained how this 'issue' is actually described. Which - somehow - I've never really cottened onto...!
I think this can be clearly marked down as an ignorance point on my part. And I'm glad to finally get a better grasp on it. Cheers...
I think I'll use the "I still don't know enough about my own country - let alone yours..." exuse :D
So are you saying that America literally can't be called a 'democratic' country? That's it's actually technically wrong? Or are you saying that it's just the wrong way to think about it...?
The idea of a 'republic' and a 'democracy' aren't actually mutually exclusive are they? Isn't it more that it's a democracy 'within fixed borders' - so to speak?
That's why I find it so fascinating to observe.
I get what your saying now. OK - you've certainly given me some brain food. I'm gonna spend a bit of time chewing the cud on these replies...
But in the meantime, what's your opinion on amendments to the constitution? If the democratically elected leaders of the country can 'add' to the constitution, does the constitiution actually perform the 'role' it is meant to - in your eyes?
I get the feeling were actually looking at each other now, as were talking ;)
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
-
_barrelomonkeys
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
-
_Ren
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am
Just saw a news report on the TV that made me think of this thread.
There was a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport a few weeks ago. A guy drove a jeep into a terminal, and then the jeep burst into flames.
The driver was arrested alive, but horribly burnt. I just saw in the report that the terrorist is being treated on the NHS!
I can't remember who made the comment (some poltician I guess), but this was the comment:
"This simply empathises the priority this country places on human life..."
There was a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport a few weeks ago. A guy drove a jeep into a terminal, and then the jeep burst into flames.
The driver was arrested alive, but horribly burnt. I just saw in the report that the terrorist is being treated on the NHS!
I can't remember who made the comment (some poltician I guess), but this was the comment:
"This simply empathises the priority this country places on human life..."