5 of 5
5
Mississippi goes 180 from Cuomo’s soft drink ban
Posted: 09 April 2013 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03

VYZAMA:

‘Some people adhere to the belief society should be organized by a central authoritative figure (imagined or otherwise).’
No, not really.  They don’t adhere to that belief.  They live by that instinct. If you could poll people discretely-all would take for granted the central authority. Everyone would.  They may have problems with the central authority.  But the over arching idea of a central authority wouldn’t come into question.  Ideas on who should be the central authority or how it could be improved would come into play. Read that again please. It’s very important.

Familiarize yourself with basic anarchist, or anti-statist political philosophy. It’s entire premise is that the any organization that is not based on voluntary exchange is aggression by definition.  Maybe that definition of ‘authority’ wasn’t clear, but to assume everyone takes for granted the legitimacy of some central authority is false.

‘Some people believe democracy is just and best reflects the will of “the people”.’
Yeah.  Why wouldn’t they?  As a sidenote I get your critique of our(or yours-in your country) democratic process.  I’m not a fan of the obvious imbalances of “democracy” either.  Of course what I perceive as imbalances might be different from your perceptions of imbalances.

If you’re actually interested in the topic, an easy read is Beyond Democracy (Beckman, Karel, Karsten, Frank).
In essence, you lose a fundamental right to some decision in your life for 0.0001% say.  Democracy isn’t the will of the people, its the will of the people who won.  Much worse, in practise the vast majority of laws passed you never even see, much less vote for, and obviously cannot opt out of. And of course the vast majority of laws are created by priveleged few. To call it mob rule, would be a huge achievement it will never reach.

..Population defines what rights are.  Usually by majority.  If the majority doesn’t like it…revolution usually occurs.

No, population defines what averages are.  For the record, I’m not a proponent of ‘rights’ as some inalienable construct either.

Some are much more self-consistent than others.
Ahhnn…need more data.  Examples.  On the surface I must take this as your opinion.

Just off the top of my head.

Objectivism for example (which I find flawed), attempts to derive behaviour as ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ based on whether or not it intrudes on a rational individual’s ability to act in their self interest in a consisent manner with other rational individuals.

Libertarians believe in the role of government as law makers and protection of contracts.

Anti-statists argue any agency that assumes for itself a monopoly on the initiation of force is aggressive.

Democracy is a popularity contest, which even allows for the dismantling of itself.

etc

Oh believe me I love discussing political theory.  But I will get irrational and use ad hominem again.  That’s why I like to stay on the human behavioral level. If we can agree on why we have differing views of philosophy and political values than we can begin to see that it doesn’t really matter.It all boils down to economics, police and armies.

To say views on politics doesnt really matter, means views on morality and ethics doesn’t really matter.
Sure, nothing matters when we’re all dead a trillion years from now, but again, Im not sure what youre arguing here?

...

Right above is the 2nd time I’ve seen raibos used the term “whim” to describe political machinations.  This shows to me that he is either not wanting to admit subjectivity in his political theory, or he is just woefully inadequate in comprehending politics in general. raibos said to me pointing out subjectivity was not helpful in discussing political theory.  Yes it is!

And that in itself is just “a subjective” opinion, so your position is self defeating by your own standards?

It’s not helpful pointing out subjectivity to the person when they want to point out their opinion on what they feels is wrong with politics.  It’s like listening to old people complain about food.

There’s a difference between complaining about food, and dismissing the warnings about salt content in your diet as just ‘subjective’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

raibos-  I want to find common ground with you in this discussion if possible.  I’ll say firstly that my replies have been paternalistic at times and combative.
I must add that yours have been equally resilient.
Just going back and forth with “yes it is” “no it’s not” yes it is” “no it’s not” is non-productive.
But anyways, objectively or subjectively you seem to have some pretty specific convictions on the role of government and peoples interaction with it.
On the surface it seems we will not be able to find an ideological common ground.
I am a strong nationalist. And I believe in nationalization.  I also believe in the inevitability of capitalism.  But at the very least capitalism should be bolstered by gradients of protectionism for the benefit of indigenous labor. If labor is to be treated as a commodity-then the government should take all steps to ensure that it’s national commodity is well tended.
I also have no problems with wealth re-distribution through taxation. In my perfect world millionaires or billionaires would not be allowed to exist until all of the nation’s people have at least the basic necessities of living.  Regardless of how they( the poor or disenfranchised) are portrayed by propagandists or self seeking capitalists who paint their wealth as a benefit to all of the population.
I think the idea of liberty is a very subjective idea.  Most of it is contained in old musty books by Paine, Locke, Jefferson, and many more people who had swell ideas back in the Enlightenment.  All that crap is a sidenote to how the US has evolved into a syndicalist, or hyper-capitalist “economic-hegemony”.
But, as a libertarian you should know that liberty is not something you can buy or read up on.  Liberty is in the moment. 
Raibos-get liberty!  What are you waiting for?  Get liberated! You’ll most definitely have to disrupt other people’s liberty in getting all the liberty you want.
But quit talking about.  Go get your liberty.

[ Edited: 09 April 2013 06:32 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

raibos-Maybe that definition of ‘authority’ wasn’t clear, but to assume everyone takes for granted the legitimacy of some central authority is false.

No it is not false! Period!
The vast majority of people(99.9%) want(need) to be led.  That is how human behavior exists! Groups form….leaders take charge!
Uhhh…just look at human history since…uhhh…I don’t know….since the beginning of recorded history.
And I put disclaimers in my sentence about people’s perceptions of legitimacy.
I didn’t say they take for granted the legitimacy(although enough do).
I said people take for granted the idea of a central authority.

[ Edited: 09 April 2013 06:30 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2681
Joined  2011-04-24

RBarios and VYAZMA -  if I may cut in gents, the topic of flaws in Democracy is an interesting one. Somebody should start a new thread on it, rather than mix it up with this one.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2013 05:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 09 April 2013 07:41 PM

RBarios and VYAZMA -  if I may cut in gents, the topic of flaws in Democracy is an interesting one. Somebody should start a new thread on it, rather than mix it up with this one.

Point taken Mid Atlantic.  I also realized I’ve been spelling RBarios name wrong.  Sorry about that.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2013 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
VYAZMA - 10 April 2013 05:45 AM
mid atlantic - 09 April 2013 07:41 PM

RBarios and VYAZMA -  if I may cut in gents, the topic of flaws in Democracy is an interesting one. Somebody should start a new thread on it, rather than mix it up with this one.

Point taken Mid Atlantic.  I also realized I’ve been spelling RBarios name wrong.  Sorry about that.

Sure a different topic on democracy would be great.
Also, I think part of our back in forth is that I define ‘not all’ and ‘99.9%’ as the same thing
(Though I’d love to further address some of the misconceptions you’ve enumerated in your lost post).


ps, ‘rbairos’, not ‘rbarios’, but youre’ getting closer smile

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5