Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

My Politics

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:01:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.

Would you be in favor of organized crime?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:21:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:01:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.

Would you be in favor of organized crime?

No.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:26:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:21:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:01:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.

Would you be in favor of organized crime?

No.

i suppose organized crime would have no reason to exist if the black market is legal.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:16:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

Agree. The typical libertarian mantra that "maximal liberty = maximum legally permissible range of human behavior" is defacto nonsense.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 10:19:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:26:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:21:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:01:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.

Would you be in favor of organized crime?

No.

i suppose organized crime would have no reason to exist if the black market is legal.

No, it would still exist. You would just be making organized crime legal.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 10:20:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You wouldn't call it crime, but it would be the same exact thing.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:07:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Who gives a sh*t about your politics when you don't give a sh*t about other peoples' politics?

You are nothing but another dumb Trump voter with an average IQ lower than 100.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:59:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 10:20:08 AM, user13579 wrote:
You wouldn't call it crime, but it would be the same exact thing.

Right, just like prostitution.
Ubermensch-Tsoa
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 9:44:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:
I believe in one thing before anything else: maximal liberty, consistent with commensurate liberty being enjoyed by all others. This makes me a libertarian socialist, or libertarian minarchist, anarchist, or whatever you want to call it.

Liberty is the absence of restraint; i.e. the state of being free. Liberty exists in two forms: social and economic, assuming government has sufficiently secured the society from internal and external threats.Social and economic liberty are the absence of restraint of individual choice; the former, regarding choices such as who a person can marry or what a person can say, while the latter, pertains to choices of how money is earned and spent, assuming basic necessities are met (i.e. economic security).

I also don't think this is a controversial position, until we start talking about how we're going to go about meeting people's basic needs, or just how far I'm willing to extend individual liberty. So, the only real difference between the "mainstream" and I is where I draw the line. I draw the line at "maximal liberty consistent with that commensurate liberty being enjoyed by others."

My politics do not distinguish between persons on the basis of race, class, or gender; but regard every individual's liberty as an ultimate end. Laws of this society, then, should exist only to ensure that such liberty is enjoyed by all.

To have views like this is to require some considerable tolerance for chaos in the society. For example, because we know that there is both a market and carrying capacity within that market for crime, some crime is always going to take place. It can't be eliminated. I acknowledge that, but in my society and if laws were written to achieve the purposes I've indicated, the laws only seek in their administration to manage crime, for a collective individual benefit (i.e. for the benefit of all people in the society).

But liberty, nonetheless, is the first and overarching principal that informs all other discussions.

You speak from a different perspective that I appreciate.
I thought about some of the items you have discussed and I have came to a conclusion where our society ought to be headed. This has been broken down.

Dump - no, pour money into our educational system and reform it ASAP.
I'm talkin a full reform. Detach the educational system from the political system. Teachers (experts in the field) should be making the final decisions on teaching matters. That is all. Not politicians etc. Anyways, to my point.

With the increase of education (with a different focus) we can see a populace that can critically think for themselves. Imagine the possibilities. People understanding the purpose of being a citizen within a society. Understand what a social contract is and how they belong to this contract. Most laws we see today (some that leave be dumbfounded) simply wouldn't exist.

Of course this might be the longest road to a full recovery to our humanity but a plausible one. I think.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 10:19:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:07:10 PM, Haroush wrote:
Who gives a sh*t about your politics when you don't give a sh*t about other peoples' politics?

You are nothing but another dumb Trump voter with an average IQ lower than 100.

Heil Trump!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 10:36:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's really interesting how irrational some people become at the thought of Trump.

Granted, I don't think any member on this site considers Haroush's perspective one worth even acknowledging. For example, anyone who thinks that political beliefs are correlated with intellectual capacity is delusional. Haroush thinks that support for Trump indicates stupidity. Haroush must therefore be delusional.

But the more interesting question is *why* Haroush is delusional. I think it's the same reason that a lot of people on the left call Trump a bigot/racist/etc. Sort of like members of the left who are losing their minds (see my sig() he clearly doesn't understand what's happening or what it means.

Now to be fair, many people don't understand what's happening or what it means, but most people don't go around and say that anyone who supports Trump is dumb. Almost everyone, other than Haroush (and like a few others) at least have somewhat sophisticated (even if wrong) explanations for why people support Trump.

For example, many members on the left or the right at least make SOME effort to denounce Trump supporters as racists, bigots, or something that they can support with at least SOME evidence. But Haroush wasn't even able to do that. So, that puts him precisely behind the curve, in terms of who has at least plausible explanations as to why people vote Trump.

More interesting is Haroush's assessment of my political beliefs. I support Bernie Sanders, obviously. I will likely write Sanders in, unless Hillary picks him as her vice president (which I am increasingly thinking that she might). But Haroush, probably due some cognitive deficiency, thinks that I am just gung-ho for Trump. Trump is the least worst Republican by far, and the only Republican I would even consider worthy of the presidency who ran, yes. But that's it.

Haroush, however, does not understand what is happening in the world around him and, much like anyone who has had their worldview shattered, is going to lash out in response to that in a very childish and irrational way, as he did here, and as he does in many other threads. When and if he is capable of expressing his perspective in a reasonable way, I'd consider speaking to him, but until such time as that, I'll simply speak *about* him, as he is not worth directly engaging with.
Tsar of DDO
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:04:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:07:10 PM, Haroush wrote:
Who gives a sh*t about your politics when you don't give a sh*t about other peoples' politics?

You are nothing but another dumb Trump voter with an average IQ lower than 100.

Said the one who thought that you could send people viruses through DDO PMs.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:05:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:07:10 PM, Haroush wrote:
Who gives a sh*t about your politics
You do, obviously.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:30:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:

What's your position on anti-discrimination laws (e.g. denying services due to discriminatory beliefs and its prohibition)?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:19:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:30:46 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:50:31 PM, YYW wrote:

What's your position on anti-discrimination laws (e.g. denying services due to discriminatory beliefs and its prohibition)?

Good question. I'm interested in his answer as well.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 9:26:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Can you explain how your immigration views fit in this framework?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:30:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 10:36:23 PM, YYW wrote:
It's really interesting how irrational some people become at the thought of Trump.

Granted, I don't think any member on this site considers Haroush's perspective one worth even acknowledging. For example, anyone who thinks that political beliefs are correlated with intellectual capacity is delusional. Haroush thinks that support for Trump indicates stupidity. Haroush must therefore be delusional.

But the more interesting question is *why* Haroush is delusional. I think it's the same reason that a lot of people on the left call Trump a bigot/racist/etc. Sort of like members of the left who are losing their minds (see my sig() he clearly doesn't understand what's happening or what it means.

Now to be fair, many people don't understand what's happening or what it means, but most people don't go around and say that anyone who supports Trump is dumb. Almost everyone, other than Haroush (and like a few others) at least have somewhat sophisticated (even if wrong) explanations for why people support Trump.

For example, many members on the left or the right at least make SOME effort to denounce Trump supporters as racists, bigots, or something that they can support with at least SOME evidence. But Haroush wasn't even able to do that. So, that puts him precisely behind the curve, in terms of who has at least plausible explanations as to why people vote Trump.

More interesting is Haroush's assessment of my political beliefs. I support Bernie Sanders, obviously. I will likely write Sanders in, unless Hillary picks him as her vice president (which I am increasingly thinking that she might). But Haroush, probably due some cognitive deficiency, thinks that I am just gung-ho for Trump. Trump is the least worst Republican by far, and the only Republican I would even consider worthy of the presidency who ran, yes. But that's it.

Haroush, however, does not understand what is happening in the world around him and, much like anyone who has had their worldview shattered, is going to lash out in response to that in a very childish and irrational way, as he did here, and as he does in many other threads. When and if he is capable of expressing his perspective in a reasonable way, I'd consider speaking to him, but until such time as that, I'll simply speak *about* him, as he is not worth directly engaging with.

That's a nice way to observe how people cope with dissonance.