What Are Your Politics?

[Libertarian666]

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

There is a choice like that: anarchism.

[jacob_h]

A libertarian monarchy wouldn't seem too problematic; it's just advocacy for limited government, with the limited government being a monarchy rather than a democracy, right?

Anarcho-monarchy seems more interesting in its philosophical construction given that its constituent words are mutually exclusive.

Well, assuming you could find someone of sufficient moral fiber to resist the temptation of power, a benevolent dictatorship where said dictator has agreed to use his defined and limited powers to preserve freedom for the citizenry could certainly be interesting.  I think the main stumbling block for monarchies historically is the hereditary aspect.  Passing a political position to the the favorite misbegotten progeny yielded results even worse than our current system of parties and primaries.  After all, Nero would have had a hard time getting elected to anything.

Rural Engineer, you may find the idea of the "sovereign security corporation" interesting, where the benefactors/beneficiaries/stakeholders of a government elect a board/senate/council of nobles whose main duty is to enthrone/depose the chairman/dictator/king.  The king runs and organizes the government as he sees fit, like the president of a corporation would, but the loyalty of the government workers (including the military) is to the council of nobles - enforced through several possible mechanisms, such as weapons locks and salary payments - so that when the senate says the king is out the underlings stop reporting to him.  This combines the sanity of a good monarch, the professionalism of an aristocratic class, the safeguards of a republic, and the efficiency of a joint-stock company.

If this king also ruled over several subsidiary countries, bringing them the benefits of his capable governance, then he would probably make a pretty good emperor.  Just sayin'....

[blackomen]

I'd say I'm closest to Libertarian on the list..

[Bean]

My coworkers call me Ron Swanson...and I am cool with that.  So I guess I am "a staunch libertarian."

[doodle]

Im a doodletarian! I subscribe to my own political philosophy and it is subject to change at any moment. Besides...I have no idea what any of these poltical terms mean anymore as everyone seems to rewrite the definitions. In addition, if you wholeheartedly subsrcibe to any label doesnt that just make you a dittohead? I dont want to be associated with any label...:-)

How is that for an expression of individualism from the forums "communist" insurgent!

[Pointedstick]

Oh yeah? Well I'm an Anti-Doodletarian. I don't know what I believe either, but if those doodletarians believe it, I'm against it. Pistols at dawn!

[doodle]

Doodletarians are like water on rock....we dont duel. We just gradually wear you down over eons 

[Thomas Hoog]

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

[doodle]

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

Yes, reality is only limited by the scope of ones imagination. It is difficult for a fish to imagine a world outside of the little pond it swims in....

[MediumTex]

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

Perhaps he should have added a choice for "Big Man Tribalism."

That would pick up a bunch of other political arrangements.

[dualstow]

Centrist, I guess.

[Xan]

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

I thought the left/right paradigm was originally French.

[Coffee]

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

Are you talking about here in America?

Let's suppose there's an active shooter on the loose in your kid's school.  That shooter happens to be an American, too.  Are you really going to tell me you wouldn't be begging the SWAT guys (or Delta Force, if you had that option!) to go in and take him out?

I would.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on coercion".  That doesn't exist in America today, so I'm not 100% sure you're talking about our government or not?

[doodle]

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

Are you talking about here in America?

Let's suppose there's an active shooter on the loose in your kid's school.  That shooter happens to be an American, too.  Are you really going to tell me you wouldn't be begging the SWAT guys (or Delta Force, if you had that option!) to go in and take him out?

I would.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on coercion".  That doesn't exist in America today, so I'm not 100% sure you're talking about our government or not?

How can you have any laws if you dont have coercive force? I agree that the burden of proof should rest on the party implementing the force, but rules without any mechanism to enforce them are merely suggestions.

[MediumTex]

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

Are you talking about here in America?

Let's suppose there's an active shooter on the loose in your kid's school.  That shooter happens to be an American, too.  Are you really going to tell me you wouldn't be begging the SWAT guys (or Delta Force, if you had that option!) to go in and take him out?

I would.

That's an easy case.  The harder cases are those that seem to happen much more frequently where the guys with the guns are just doing sloppy work that results in people getting killed, whether it's sloppy administration of the death penalty where we find out later that we killed the wrong guy or sloppy application of the U.S. military apparatus that leads to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people, including many U.S. citizens.  There are many examples of the government killing people or placing them in position to be killed for questionable reasons.  It's one of the features of any entity that seeks to corner the market on the legal delivery of violence anywhere and at any time.

The basic problem is that violence is always a downward spiral in which violence leads to more violence.  No matter how justified it feels when it's being administered, violence rarely delivers the hoped-for results.  Humans can be quite bloodthirsty, though, so violence is often appealing to certain people whether it actually achieves anything useful or not and there are always going to be unlucky people on the other end of the barrel who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on coercion".  That doesn't exist in America today, so I'm not 100% sure you're talking about our government or not?

You don't think that the government is constantly trying to corner the market on the ability to coerce the citizenry through the threat of violence for nonconformity?

To cite an example I have used before, Apple Computer's response when people choose not to buy its computers is to make better computers in the hope that buyers will be lured back to its stores.  When it comes to public opposition to a new government program that many people don't want to participate in (such as Obamacare), however, the government's response to people not wanting to consume and pay for the services it is offering is to deny them their freedom, steal their property and ultimately take their lives if necessary.

The point I am making is that only an entity that has nearly cornered the market on the ability to use coercion against others to achieve its ends would be able to do the things that the government does today (and has done throughout history).  To contrast Apple Computer to this arrangement, no matter how big Apple Computer ever got I don't think that I would ever have to fear a group of Apple employees kicking in my door and demanding to know why I hadn't upgraded my operating system.

[Thomas Hoog]

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

Perhaps he should have added a choice for "Big Man Tribalism."

That would pick up a bunch of other political arrangements.

I know the meaning of "tribalism", which is nothing for me. I am just a pure individualist. But what is "Big man" ? Maybe we could start the "permanent portflio party"; the PPP, which is a kind of tribalism.

A typical Anglo Saxon Poll, which ignore the rest of humanity, which proves that politics are a cultural phenomen and should be ignored.

I thought the left/right paradigm was originally French.

I think you're right, after the french revolution. My problem is definition. The opions of the left wing USA are right wing opions in my country and we have a lot of strange parties; mainly religous-based, which is political completely weird. Why being lead by a no-existing God. And we have even a party to protect animal rights

[doodle]

I wish there was a choice that said: "I don't think that the government should kill people, especially its own citizens."

To me, killing people is the highest expression of coercion, and obtaining a monopoly on coercion is typically one of the government's principal objectives.

Are you talking about here in America?

Let's suppose there's an active shooter on the loose in your kid's school.  That shooter happens to be an American, too.  Are you really going to tell me you wouldn't be begging the SWAT guys (or Delta Force, if you had that option!) to go in and take him out?

I would.

That's an easy case.  The harder cases are those that seem to happen much more frequently where the guys with the guns are just doing sloppy work that results in people getting killed, whether it's sloppy administration of the death penalty where we find out later that we killed the wrong guy or sloppy application of the U.S. military apparatus that leads to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people, including many U.S. citizens.  There are many examples of the government killing people or placing them in position to be killed for questionable reasons.  It's one of the features of any entity that seeks to corner the market on the legal delivery of violence anywhere and at any time.

The basic problem is that violence is always a downward spiral in which violence leads to more violence.  No matter how justified it feels when it's being administered, violence rarely delivers the hoped-for results.  Humans can be quite bloodthirsty, though, so violence is often appealing to certain people whether it actually achieves anything useful or not and there are always going to be unlucky people on the other end of the barrel who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "monopoly on coercion".  That doesn't exist in America today, so I'm not 100% sure you're talking about our government or not?

You don't think that the government is constantly trying to corner the market on the ability to coerce the citizenry through the threat of violence for nonconformity?

To cite an example I have used before, Apple Computer's response when people choose not to buy its computers is to make better computers in the hope that buyers will be lured back to its stores.  When it comes to public opposition to a new government program that many people don't want to participate in (such as Obamacare), however, the government's response to people not wanting to consume and pay for the services it is offering is to deny them their freedom, steal their property and ultimately take their lives if necessary.

The point I am making is that only an entity that has nearly cornered the market on the ability to use coercion against others to achieve its ends would be able to do the things that the government does today (and has done throughout history).  To contrast Apple Computer to this arrangement, no matter how big Apple Computer ever got I don't think that I would ever have to fear a group of Apple employees kicking in my door and demanding to know why I hadn't upgraded my operating system.

I also strongly believe that violence should be avoided at all costs and I dont disagree with you that our government uses violence all too frequently. However, you cannot draw a comparison between a private corporation and an entity which is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations. Violence or coercion should be a last resort, but you cannot have the existence of law without it. Also, the comparison between selling someone a computer and healthcare is so tenuous an analogy that it doesnt even make sense. Apple computers doesnt have the obligation to give people a free computer whenever they walk into their store with a legitimate need for one. Hospitals on the other hand do, which means that a lot of Americans are simply stealing a service without paying for it. Now, there are only two options as I see it: 1) stop treating people who dont have health insurance. 2) compel all people to purchase health insurance......no easy answers.

[Pointedstick]

Well this gets to the heart of what government is. As doodle correctly points out, laws inherently require violence to back them up. If we want to be a society of laws, we need to accept the violence that comes with these laws, and understand that more laws means more violence.

This is why I'm always so leery of supporting expansions of government. Every new law has a gun behind it, ready to shoot you if you don't follow it and resist efforts to make you follow it. Maybe a little dramatic, but it's really the truth.

[MediumTex]

I also strongly believe that violence should be avoided at all costs and I dont disagree with you that our government uses violence all too frequently. However, you cannot draw a comparison between a private corporation and an entity which is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations. Violence or coercion should be a last resort, but you cannot have the existence of law without it. Also, the comparison between selling someone a computer and healthcare is so tenuous an analogy that it doesnt even make sense. Apple computers doesnt have the obligation to give people a free computer whenever they walk into their store with a legitimate need for one. Hospitals on the other hand do, which means that a lot of Americans are simply stealing a service without paying for it. Now, there are only two options as I see it: 1) stop treating people who dont have health insurance. 2) compel all people to purchase health insurance......no easy answers.

Health care existed before government sought to control it, right?

I'm not really trying to compare Obamacare to Apple Computer so much as I am trying to compare the methods used by the private sector with the methods used by the government to implement plans and achieve objectives.  One uses persuasion, while the other uses coercion.

You may reply with something like "Well, yes, the government is always going to be cracking a few skulls here and there, but we have to have a government, right?"  I don't disagree with the idea that some form of government is necessary, but the question is the size of its footprint in society.  A communist might look at the U.S. and be aghast at how we can function with so little government intruding in our daily lives, while a libertarian might look at the same situation and be aghast that we can function with so much government in our daily lives.

All I am suggesting is that in the U.S. the private sector has done a much better job of delivering the products and services that people actually want than the government has.  In areas where the government has apparently done a good job with certain tasks, what you typically find are private sector contractors doing most of the heavy lifting (such as in the space program).

Someone once said that the reason we have traffic is that the government builds the roads and the private sector builds the cars. 

Government is a blunt instrument.  It's a tool that has a place in the toolbox, but some people seem to think that it's the only tool that should be in the toolbox. 

One question that is interesting to ponder is whether taxation constitutes theft.  For someone who doesn't believe it constitutes theft, what is the basis for this conclusion?  I'm not asking whether we enjoy the benefits that are provided through the redistribution of wealth that occurs via taxation, I'm just asking if there is any distinction between taxation and theft?  Is it somehow legitimate to take people's property if a majority of people say it's okay or because you have the biggest gun?  If we agree that taxation is, at least in some ways, theft, then doesn't this constitute a powerful argument for the smallest possible government footprint in society?

The idea that I am getting at is that maybe we should try to minimize both the killing AND the stealing that the government engages in in the name of "serving the public" or some other similar platitude.

[doodle]

All I am suggesting is that in the U.S. the private sector has done a much better job of delivering the products and services that people actually want than the government has.  In areas where the government has apparently done a good job with certain tasks, what you typically find are private sector contractors doing most of the heavy lifting (such as in the space program).

Someone once said that the reason we have traffic is that the government builds the roads and the private sector builds the cars. 

MT, I dont disagree that there are certain functions that the government could turn over to the private sector and other ones that the private sector could turn over to the government. I have no issues with private roads...except that they create a situation for a monopoly to emerge. How many competing roads can you build to the same destination? Some regulation is necessary and once again you have a need for government. Also, the idea of eminent domain certainly makes building a straight road easier. As compulsive as that might be, sometimes the utilitarian principle of the greater good supersedes that of the individual.

One question that is interesting to ponder is whether taxation constitutes theft.  For someone who doesn't believe it constitutes theft, what is the basis for this conclusion?  I'm not asking whether we enjoy the benefits that are provided through the redistribution of wealth that occurs via taxation, I'm just asking if there is any distinction between taxation and theft?  Is it somehow legitimate to take people's property if a majority of people say it's okay or because you have the biggest gun?  If we agree that taxation is, at least in some ways, theft, then doesn't this constitute a powerful argument for the smallest possible government footprint in society?

The idea that I am getting at is that maybe we should try to minimize both the killing AND the stealing that the government engages in in the name of "serving the public" or some other similar platitude.

By all means minimize the killing. The stealing is a bit more complicated however and I believe it is too strong a word. First off, in a modern fiat monetary system the government doesnt require tax money to fund things. Taxation only serves as an inflation drain and as a means to create demand for the currency. If you remove the public currency and we go back to the wildcat banking days you are going to see a big negative economic impact. The government backing of the currency creates a huge source of stability for our economy.

Second, as far as redistribution of wealth this goes back to our tribal discussions. A society cannot function in a harmonious manner when you have great disparity. Democracy breaks down when you have a highly wealth stratified society. I lament the fact that we cant have a more equitable society without forced redistribution, but if we want to continue to function as a democractic and egalitarian nation state where equality of opportunity and a social safety net exist for all, then I dont see another way. I place a higher value on these ideals than on whether a billionaire gets to keep a little more money in his bank account. Its a values judgement where I maybe differ from you.

[moda0306]

If taxation constitutes theft, then what does the act of claiming vital natural resources as your own and withholding them for someone else's labor constitute?

We're all on this island together.  Any natural resource that I claim as my own can't, by logical necessity, be used by someone else, unless they pay for it with their labor.

This is all one big game of theft and distribution/redistribution.  Always has been... always will be.  There's no way around it when you realize we're all in a battle for scarce resources that aren't inherently private.  I worry less about the fact that there is theft, and more about what kind of fairness with which the theft is applied, and the nature of the resulting world I live in in terms of freedom, security, fairness, productivity, and prosperity.

[MediumTex]

As far as redistribution of wealth this goes back to our tribal discussions. A society cannot function in a harmonious manner when you have great disparity. Democracy breaks down when you have a highly wealth stratified society. I lament the fact that we cant have a more equitable society without forced redistribution, but if we want to continue to function as a democractic and egalitarian nation state where equality of opportunity and a social safety net exist for all, then I dont see another way. I place a higher value on these ideals than on whether a billionaire gets to keep a little more money in his bank account. Its a values judgement where I maybe differ from you.

I'm not talking about whether a society needs to redistribute wealth in order to maintain stability.  What I'm talking about is whether the preferred means to do this is theft.

Note that a redistribution of wealth happens in the private sector every day as the best providers of goods and services change and the wealth that was once directed to one company or industry is directed to another.

One can be 100% in favor of the redistribution of wealth without being in favor of the government being the sole wealth redistribution agent using theft as its primary tool.

Every day that a person goes to work, wealth is being redistributed as the money in the employer's account is transferred to the employee's account.  That is one method of wealth redistribution.  Another method of redistributing the employer's wealth would just be to show up at his offices with a gun and demand that he hand over some portion of his earnings if he doesn't want to be kidnapped.

Our mental pathways when thinking about these things are often so calcified from years or decades of being fed dumb ideas that it can be hard to develop "unrutted" ways of thinking about these social/political questions.  Once you internalize the concept that the government is just another agent in society that is competing with all other groups for influence/power/authority/legitimacy, you begin to see that there is nothing special about government as a problem solving entity, other than the fact that it has succeeded in mostly cornering the market on the legal administration of violence (and the ever-present threat thereof).

Consider this question the next time you are driving down the highway and see a member of law enforcement looking for people to pull over: In what way does the highway patrolman differ from the highway robbers that have been a menace to travelers throughout history?  The difference is that the modern highway robber has no competition.  What is bizarre is that rather than seeing this lack of competition as the ultimate accomplishment of a career criminal, he somehow deludes himself into believing that the money he is stealing from travelers under the threat of overwhelming force is being done for the benefit of the public and that he is really just a good guy who is protecting and serving.  I don't recommend that you ask a police officer this if you ever get pulled over because it really pisses them off, but a question to ponder is why, if traffic fines are intended to improve traffic safety, are they not deposited into a fund used to promote safe driving, compensate victims of reckless driving and improve the safety of roadways?  The truth, of course, is that they can't be used for such purposes because they are used to pay the salaries of the people who are collecting the fines, which is a bureaucratic way of saying that the thief would prefer to keep the money that he steals rather than use it for the benefit of others.  To be fair, though, other agencies of government do share the money that they steal after, of course, their own salaries have been paid from their plunder.

[MediumTex]

If taxation constitutes theft, then what does the act of claiming vital natural resources as your own and withholding them for someone else's labor constitute?

The property interest in natural resources should be considered the improvements to the land that facilitate the extraction of the natural resources.  Anyone can claim a piece of property believed to hold valuable natural resources.  It's the person who can bring the physical and intellectual capital to profitably extract the resources who has IMHO created a property interest that should be protected.  That line of thinking is basically how federal grants of natural resource mining and drilling rights work--if you don't do anything with your claim you lose it.

We're all on this island together.  Any natural resource that I claim as my own can't, by logical necessity, be used by someone else, unless they pay for it with their labor.

Right.  The natural resource is brought to market though the allocation of capital by one economic actor and then redistributed to another economic actor through an agreed upon economic exchange.  If no property interest had been recognized in the improvements to the land that the natural resource entrepreneur had made, there would be no natural resource for sale in the marketplace, right?

Extracting natural resources and delivering them to the market profitably is harder than it looks.  I don't mind allowing the people who do this to make a profit.

This is all one big game of theft and distribution/redistribution.  Always has been... always will be.  There's no way around it when you realize we're all in a battle for scarce resources that aren't inherently private.  I worry less about the fact that there is theft, and more about what kind of fairness with which the theft is applied, and the nature of the resulting world I live in in terms of freedom, security, fairness, productivity, and prosperity.

That's all I'm saying as well.  Let's be realistic about the nature of what the government does--it steals from one and makes us feel better about it by showing us how equitable they are in the way that they redistribute their loot (after their own salaries have been paid and their own constituencies taken care of, of course).

Consider this example: If I am washed up on the shore of an island that no one knows about and through my own mental and physical effort I turn the island into not only a place in which I can survive, but a place that would be valuable to others to visit, what type of theft have I engaged in and would it be proper for me to be upset if a group of thugs came ashore one day and told me that the entire island, including all of my improvements, had been annexed by a nearby country and I had 48 hours to leave and never return?

[doodle]

Mt,

Yes the government is an entity of violence competing with others. But if we want laws, then we must accept coercion and violence and therefore the question become what form should this coercive entity take? So far a constitutionally bound democratic republic seems like a pretty good way to do things. After all, violence doesnt disappear in the absence of government, it just turns into the type of turf warfare that we see the drug cartels engaging in in Mexico or between two angry individuals who decide to settle their problems with pistols. When two parties disagree....which is bound to happen on a planet of 7 billion individuals....there must be an arbiter who has final say. Without this we go back to the law of the jungle.

What would you do if one of your kids kept trying to light the house on fire? After all, you kind of are like the government within the confines of your house. Would you step in and coercively stop them or just try to reason with them while they poured gasoline on your living room furniture?

[doodle]

Mt,

Your entire worldview rests on the idea that humans can own anything other than their own bodies. Once you move the idea of ownership to things outside of your own body, to the surface of the planet, you are making a personal judgement and on this judgement your shaky construction rests. I dont find the argument very convincing that just because you are hardworking and smart all of a sudden you are entitled to something which you did not create....namely the earth and its resources. Who decides how this planet gets divided up? It seems like you are coercing us to abide by you idea of how that should be done.