What Are Your Politics?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Please vote for whichever is closest to your political philosophy.

Neo-Conservative: Reagan, Bush-43, Thatcher
3
7%
Neo-Liberal: FDR, LBJ, Nixon
1
2%
Old Right: Coolidge, Cleveland, Bob Taft
6
15%
Old Left: Eugene V. Debs, Clement Attlee
2
5%
Far Right: Facism, National Socialism
0
No votes
Far Left: Marx, Lenin, Mao
0
No votes
Libertarian
20
49%
Anarchist
7
17%
Theocracy
1
2%
Classical Toryism Legitimist Monarchist
1
2%
 
Total votes: 41
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by MediumTex » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:47 pm

doodle wrote: Not everyone lives in the kind of neighborhoods that you do.
Right, but more people than ever before in history do, and it's because of what has happened in the private sector, not because of the bumbling efforts at improving society undertaken by the government.

The productive elements in society tend to work around the government (or buy enough access to do business without being bothered too much).

However, I'm not at all what you would call "anti-government", for the same reasons I'm not "anti-rattlesnake."  I'm just cautious about it and like to keep an eye on it when it's around.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by doodle » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:47 pm

Pointedstick wrote:
doodle wrote: We dont disagree about government at all actually. We disagree about the degree to which our society comprised of egocentric individuals can self organize and regulate in a manner that approximates somewhere that we would want to raise our children in. Not everyone lives in the kind of neighborhoods that you do.
My response to this is that if we both acknowledge that we live in a society with egocentric, violent humans, and we both acknowledge that government is yet another organization of these people, it's difficult for me to see how we can expect the government to produce superior outcomes. Furthermore, if we both acknowledge that government is necessary in proportion to our degrees of egocentricity and violence, then it follows that the more enlightened we become, the less government we truly need. Can we agree on that?

Thus the solution to us being egocentric and violent is for us to become less egocentric and violent, not for us to designate a government to rule over us composed of certain of us who are just as violent and egocentric as the rest, or much more so.
I agree...more enlightened = less need for coercive government.

But, while government is comprised of individuals who are violent, its powers are constitutionally constrained and it cant run ramshod all over certain rights. Im certain that individuals in government would love to do that but we have a system of checks and balances that keeps them from doing that too much. If they get out of line, then people elect new representatives or overthrow the institution.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by doodle » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:50 pm

Middle east is interesting case study...

Strong government or leadership....stable society.

Weak government....tribal chaos
Simonjester wrote: a more interesting comparison might be between the prosperity, crime rate, death toll, cost of damage etc in the blast zone surrounding the fertilizer plant in Texas and an identical sized area for the same multiple year time span in any heavily government involved, pro "government is the solution" inner-city, my hunch is that in-spite of the tragic out come from under regulation or failure to enforce regulation, the area in Texas would be more prosperous, enlightened, safer and the preferred place to live for most people if they had to choose..
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by MediumTex » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:57 pm

doodle wrote: Middle east is interesting case study...

Strong government or leadership....stable society.

Weak government....tribal chaos
Are you seriously citing the Middle East as an example of stable societies?  The Middle East is probably the most politically unstable place in the world and the Middle Eastern authoritarian governments remind me of a bunch of thugs sitting on top of a powder keg.

Feedlots are also stable societies, but that doesn't mean it's the way a cow would choose to live if given options.

***

I was just thinking about all of the countries with heads of state in this neighborhood of "stable societies" that have been assassinated, executed or otherwise murdered in the last 40 years or so:

1. Israel
2. Egypt
3. Libya
4. Iraq
5. Iran
6. Lebanon
7. Saudi Arabia
8. Yemen

Being a political leader in this part of the world is apparently very dangerous.
Last edited by MediumTex on Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:01 pm

doodle wrote: Middle east is interesting case study...

Strong government or leadership....stable society.

Weak government....tribal chaos
Stable, oppressive, genocidal society run for the benefit of the top 1% of society, maybe. Most of these countries are violent basket cases!

Personally I wouldn't like to live in the middle east regardless of the amount of government. My impression is that it's not a place filled with peaceful cooperative people. Give these kinds of people a government, and they turn it on each other. Take it away, and they just do the same thing. It actually illustrates my point pretty well.

I think MT's point is key; that we have primarily improved as people to the extent that we've become more peaceful and cooperative through greater prosperity, and that prosperity has been delivered through the private sector. That is why I'm so leery of government tinkering. All throughout history, governments have killed the golden goose by trying to be more fair.

The third world provides a variety of heartbreaking examples. Did you know that Kabul used to be a fairly cosmopolitan city in the 1960s, and that Afghanistan was rapidly modernizing? Or that during that same time, Zimbabwe was known as a center of learning and culture? It turns out that these kinds of societies are surprisingly fragile when the government decides that the existing allocation of resources wasn't fair and moves them around from group to group. It's hard to say how much government redistribution will result in these kinds of tragic outcomes, but since we don't know where that line is, I prefer to stay well away from that mode of thought entirely.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:26 pm

moda0306 wrote: I use HB's measuring stick on this stuff... if I can pretty easily meander and "pretend" to recognize authority that I don't, I can live a remarkably free life.  I'm not going to take a page from the book of Libertarian666 and attempt to hold myself out as some sort of slave.  Especially when I have the freedom to move out if I wish... a freedom many slaves and genocide victims haven't had in the past.  In fact, I think it's bordering grossly insulting to hold ourselves out as such, compared to actual slavery or the Holocaust.

No offense, tech.
Please enlighten me as to where exactly a person of moderate means can move to in order to live a free life, where one can forget the government exists. Harry Browne could have done that, but he had a lot of money.

And for US citizens, even if one could move to such a country permanently, unless you get another citizenship and give up your US citizenship, you will still be subjected to the US government's tax regulations, unlike most other governments' rules, which generally don't apply to non-resident citizens.

I don't have a solution, but hiding one's head in the sand isn't a solution as far as I can see.
Last edited by Libertarian666 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:33 pm

doodle wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
doodle wrote: We dont disagree about government at all actually. We disagree about the degree to which our society comprised of egocentric individuals can self organize and regulate in a manner that approximates somewhere that we would want to raise our children in. Not everyone lives in the kind of neighborhoods that you do.
My response to this is that if we both acknowledge that we live in a society with egocentric, violent humans, and we both acknowledge that government is yet another organization of these people, it's difficult for me to see how we can expect the government to produce superior outcomes. Furthermore, if we both acknowledge that government is necessary in proportion to our degrees of egocentricity and violence, then it follows that the more enlightened we become, the less government we truly need. Can we agree on that?

Thus the solution to us being egocentric and violent is for us to become less egocentric and violent, not for us to designate a government to rule over us composed of certain of us who are just as violent and egocentric as the rest, or much more so.
I agree...more enlightened = less need for coercive government.

But, while government is comprised of individuals who are violent, its powers are constitutionally constrained and it cant run ramshod all over certain rights. Im certain that individuals in government would love to do that but we have a system of checks and balances that keeps them from doing that too much. If they get out of line, then people elect new representatives or overthrow the institution.
So a President saying that he can have someone killed just because he says they are a threat to national security isn't running roughshod over our rights? What an interesting notion.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:47 pm

MediumTex wrote: Talking in terms of extremes is rarely helpful because the extreme expression of an idea will never happen.  We will always have government; it's just a matter of what type of government and how coercive it's going to be.
I think there's a place for fleshing out your ideas in extremes, if only to inform your thinking. As moda and doodle point out, the only logically consistent position is no government at all. Once you acknowledge its legitimacy, there's no real line for its boundaries that isn't subjective.

But even if you're not willing to go that far, I think it's very, very important to draw that line in the sand somewhere even if it's an arbitrary or stupid one (this is what constitutions do). Without a line in the sand or a limiting principle of some sort, you can talk yourself into accepting any role at all for government, no matter how intrusive or absurd it may be. I see this all the time reading court cases where the justice writing the opinion upholding some restriction or other clearly has no limiting principle at all for their idea of government. It manifests itself in opinions that read like so:

"Well, the plaintiff has rights, but also has responsibilities as a citizen... so we need to balance them because one person's right is another person's restriction... the plaintiff's right to X, Y, or Z must be weighed against society's need for order and other people's right to feel safe and secure... therefore I thought very hard about it and decided that the plaintiff's right to do X, Y, or Z is outweighed by society's need for the plaintiff not to do X, Y, or Z because then they would feel uneasy, and the wants of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Case closed."

It's absurd logic that can support any possible conclusion one wants. See also http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by doodle » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:11 pm

PS,

Maybe I lean towards utilitarianism and you are a deontologist?

Ethics Theories- Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics
There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles: utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). There are several varieties of utilitarianism. But basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act (e.g., an act of stealing) or rule (e.g., “Keep your promises”?) is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (e.g., pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. In sum, according to utilitarianism, morality is a matter of the nonmoral good produced that results from moral actions and rules, and moral duty is instrumental, not intrinsic. Morality is a means to some other end; it is in no way an end in itself. Space does not allow for a detailed critique of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to say that the majority of moral philosophers and theologians have found it defective. One main problem is that utilitarianism, if adopted, justifies as morally appropriate things that are clearly immoral. For example, utilitarianism can be used to justify punishing an innocent man or enslaving a small group of people if such acts produce a maximization of consequences. But these acts are clearly immoral regardless of how fruitful they might be for the greatest number. For this and other reasons, many thinkers have advocated a second type of moral theory, deontological ethics. Deontological ethics is in keeping with Scripture, natural moral law, and intuitions from common sense. The word “deontological”? comes from the Greek word deon which means “binding duty.”? Deontological ethics has at least three important features. First, duty should be done for duty’s sake. The rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is, at least in part, a matter of the intrinsic moral features of that kind of act or rule. For example, acts of lying, promise breaking, or murder are intrinsically wrong and we have a duty not to do these things. This does not mean that consequences of acts are not relevant for assessing those acts. For example, a doctor may have a duty to benefit a patient, and he or she may need to know what medical consequences would result from various treatments in order to determine what would and would not benefit the patient. But consequences are not what make the act right, as is the case with utilitarianism. Rather, at best, consequences help us determine which action is more in keeping with what is already our duty. Consequences help us find what is our duty, they are not what make something our duty. Second, humans should be treated as objects of intrinsic moral value; that is, as ends in themselves and never as a mere means to some other end (say, overall happiness or welfare). As we will see in Part Two, this notion is very difficult to justify if one abandons the theological doctrine of man being made in the image of God. Nevertheless, justified or unjustified, deontological ethics imply that humans are ends in themselves with intrinsic value. Third, a moral principle is a categorical imperative that is universalizable; that is, it must be applicable for everyone who is in the same moral situation. Moral statements do not say, “If you want to maximize pleasure vs. pain in this instance, then do such and such.”? Rather, moral statements are imperatives or commands that hold for all examples of the type of act in consideration, such as truth telling. Moral statements say, “keep your promises,”? “do not murder,”? and so forth.
Last edited by doodle on Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Pointedstick » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:41 pm

That would make sense. Most of your arguments are heavily utilitarian. The main problem I have with utilitarianism is that because "the greatest good" or even "the greater good" are inherently subjective terms, attempting to maximize them can be used to justify anything at all--up to and including things that most would consider monstrous or absurd.

I find if anything (you'll like this) that utilitarianism inappropriately elevates the primacy of the individual since each person can have their own private definition of the greater good that they then get to attempt to impose on everyone else. What if my greater good is the extermination of all utilitarian thinkers and your greater good is the extermination of all who advocate the extermination of utilitarian thinkers? It's a recipe for constant discord and chaos, to use one of your favorite arguments!  ;D

At least deontological ethics starts from the principle that universally agreed-upon moral rules are worth following. I think what pisses off some utilitarians is that many of these moral rules seem arbitrary, and they are. But at least they're something to latch onto. Without them, you have nothing at all; you're ethically adrift. The senseless can seem sensible and the barbaric can seem moral. It's a recipe for making the world incomprehensible, rather than a tool you can use to help you build a more accurate model of reality.

Then again I may be biased, since as an INTJ, one of my lifelong goals is to build an ever more accurate mental model of reality. Utilitarianism doesn't help me get there.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:52 am

Xan wrote: I could maybe understand how monarchy has a certain persuasion (which you articulated quite well, Ad Orientem).  But aren't you giving up the ability to worship as you choose, and picking up dreadful wars of succession?  I mean, maybe during the time monarchy was popular, we didn't have "big government".  (And that may just be because it hadn't been invented yet.)  But we did have basically constant warfare.
War has been around forever. It was certainly not an invention of monarchism. But at least in the old days they didn't carpet bomb cities. And as a rule it was fought between armies, excluding civilians, in a manner governed by rules and a code of honour that we would find almost bizarre in today's world. Large scale military conscription and the concept of "Total War" is also an invention of the modern enlightened liberal democratic state. Before which armies, and by extension wars, were much smaller in scale.

Today war is squalid ugly impersonal and brutish. During the ancien regime, whether fighting over dynastic succession or some other cause, men fought, usually as volunteers, for different reasons like fame promotion fortune and yes... GLORY! War, while always horrible, had a certain cruel elegance to it which is now wholly absent.

http://youtu.be/1cIjTodmfk0
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Ad Orientem » Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:04 am

RuralEngineer wrote: For example, supposing that one tried to implement a modern monarchy, and assuming that authority was still derived from a divine mandate, who would select the monarch?  The church?  Which one?  All the European monarchies I'm familiar with are historical hereditary remnants.  There's no provision for selecting these people, it's all carry over from hundreds of years ago.
I don't think the question of succession would be the main problem to a great counter revolution and restoration of the old order. Most of the heirs to the royal houses are well known and recognized as such by monarchists and religious authorities. In the few cases where there might be some question (the Imperial Russian succession is not undisputed) then one could turn to the Church for resolution. Indeed while the Romanovs have quarreled over the succession since Czar Paul's extremely restrictive law of succession would seem to have disqualified at least on minor grounds all of the living family members, the Church has made it clear that they recognize H.I.H. the Grand Duchess Maria as the legitimate heir. And since it is unthinkable that a Czar(ina) could be crowned without the consent of the Church, the matter appears to be settled. For the record most monarchists agree that TGD Maria is the strongest claimant to the throne. But of course if one is establishing a constitutional monarchy then a parliamentary committee (yuck) could decide the issue.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Libertarian666 » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:50 am

Pointedstick wrote: That would make sense. Most of your arguments are heavily utilitarian. The main problem I have with utilitarianism is that because "the greatest good" or even "the greater good" are inherently subjective terms, attempting to maximize them can be used to justify anything at all--up to and including things that most would consider monstrous or absurd.

I find if anything (you'll like this) that utilitarianism inappropriately elevates the primacy of the individual since each person can have their own private definition of the greater good that they then get to attempt to impose on everyone else. What if my greater good is the extermination of all utilitarian thinkers and your greater good is the extermination of all who advocate the extermination of utilitarian thinkers? It's a recipe for constant discord and chaos, to use one of your favorite arguments!  ;D

At least deontological ethics starts from the principle that universally agreed-upon moral rules are worth following. I think what pisses off some utilitarians is that many of these moral rules seem arbitrary, and they are. But at least they're something to latch onto. Without them, you have nothing at all; you're ethically adrift. The senseless can seem sensible and the barbaric can seem moral. It's a recipe for making the world incomprehensible, rather than a tool you can use to help you build a more accurate model of reality.

Then again I may be biased, since as an INTJ, one of my lifelong goals is to build an ever more accurate mental model of reality. Utilitarianism doesn't help me get there.
You need only one moral rule: the Golden Rule. And that is hardly arbitrary, since everyone agrees with it... with respect to how they want others to treat them. Now if only we could get everyone to follow it themselves, then we would be living in a much better world.

And that better world would be one without government, since government by its nature must violate the Golden Rule.
edsanville
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:36 am
Location: New Hampshire, United States

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by edsanville » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:16 pm

Why is it that every time I almost participate in a forum, somebody comes in and eloquently writes exactly what I was thinking before I get a chance?  Lately, it's usually Pointedstick.  Guess I'll just sit back and read rather than write...
Pointedstick wrote: That would make sense. Most of your arguments are heavily utilitarian. The main problem I have with utilitarianism is that because "the greatest good" or even "the greater good" are inherently subjective terms, attempting to maximize them can be used to justify anything at all--up to and including things that most would consider monstrous or absurd.

I find if anything (you'll like this) that utilitarianism inappropriately elevates the primacy of the individual since each person can have their own private definition of the greater good that they then get to attempt to impose on everyone else. What if my greater good is the extermination of all utilitarian thinkers and your greater good is the extermination of all who advocate the extermination of utilitarian thinkers? It's a recipe for constant discord and chaos, to use one of your favorite arguments!  ;D

At least deontological ethics starts from the principle that universally agreed-upon moral rules are worth following. I think what pisses off some utilitarians is that many of these moral rules seem arbitrary, and they are. But at least they're something to latch onto. Without them, you have nothing at all; you're ethically adrift. The senseless can seem sensible and the barbaric can seem moral. It's a recipe for making the world incomprehensible, rather than a tool you can use to help you build a more accurate model of reality.

Then again I may be biased, since as an INTJ, one of my lifelong goals is to build an ever more accurate mental model of reality. Utilitarianism doesn't help me get there.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are Your Politics?

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:00 pm

Thanks, edsanville! That makes me feel good. :D
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Post Reply