Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

My Political Ideology

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I am a left-leaning libertarian, because I value liberty above all else. Liberty of an individual, balanced by the liberty of other individuals, is the means by which I judge government policy.

Philosophically, I am a rule utilitarian. I believe in maximizing benefit, and minimizing harm. This varies depending on multiple conditions that society is subject to, making government more of a practical concern than a moral one (to the extent that the "practical concern" affects moral ends). I desire social stability, and social order, to ensure that positive mental states are enjoyed by all, and therefore believe in legislating according to the values of the society and the "wants" of the people--and the "wants" of the people are captured best in balancing the right to liberty. Liberty is the absence of constraint, the ability of an individual to carry out a desire, and maximizing the fulfillment of desires is the ultimate utilitarian end. Thus, I believe in preserving that individual's liberty, but am willing to compromise for the liberty of other individuals.

But this "liberty" is not the liberty preached by the average libertarian in the United States--liberty is the absence of constraint, and constraint is exerted by *any* power structure. It is not limited to the power of the government. The decentralization of power is the redistribution of power that is centralized in any power structure, be it a corporation, or a government. Decentralization of power is, in my view, critical to ensuring maximal liberty. To allow people to enjoy liberty without harm, thus, I believe in regulation of corporations from selfish incentives that are counterproductive to this end, and in the assurance of certain fundamental requirements to actually enjoy liberty. This means maximizing access to and quality of health care and education, a comprehensive social safety net, and minimal/nonexistent poverty.

In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.

This decentralization of power is not within the context of a *single* society--it even affects my view of international relations. I am opposed to hegemony, and typically against military intervention except in certain specific circumstances (e.g. combating ISIS). I do not like the excuse of "democracy" in order to achieve further global hegemony. But at the same time, there have been past interventions that have been successful--such as the 1971 Indian invasion of East Pakistan, which halted the Bangladeshi genocide, and the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to remove Pol Pot from power, thus halting the Cambodian genocide.

From the context of the United States, I would be considered a modern liberal. If I lived in the United States, I would probably support the Democratic Party in most instances. I thought Bernie Sanders was the best candidate in the election--I agree with most of his economic policy, and his foreign policy is the most reasonable I have heard from a presidential candidate in the United States.

In the context of India, there is no individual politician, or party, that I support, and my ideology is incongruent with all the major neoliberal or conservative parties (which make up the vast majority of political parties in India). I am center-left by a European standard, or a full-fledged leftist by an American standard. In India, I am fine with capitalism prevailing, and the private sector having most influence in agriculture and industry. It works, with a few exceptions. But I firmly believe in government intervention with regard to health care, education, and social security, which are all necessary in the context of India because we have an unhealthy, uneducated workforce in many parts of the country--and because it is a matter of basic human dignity, and welfare.

I strongly oppose any attempt to censor speech, and firmly believe in the freedom of expression--I oppose "hate speech laws" in the context of almost every society, and I think almost every country has too many restrictions on "defamation." Similarly, I believe in the freedom to love whom you like, and to do whatever that does not harm any other individual. I am an egalitarian and firmly oppose social injustice, simply because it harms the liberty of individuals, but I do not agree with the modern social justice movement, and the SJW's who constantly censor people they disagree with, and dehumanize people with their racist rhetoric that pretends to be fighting racism.

Feel free to ask questions.
"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: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 4:15:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.
Feel free to ask questions.

Wouldn't strict environment regulations (presumably from government establishments) somewhat contradict free enterprise/Nordic capitalism? To me it would seem giving businesses economic freedom would not simultaneously allow the imposition of strict government regulations, environmental or otherwise. The same could be said for other "big government" policies. Also, I'm only curious for your explanation, I'm not trying to challenge you.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 4:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 4:15:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.
Feel free to ask questions.

Wouldn't strict environment regulations (presumably from government establishments) somewhat contradict free enterprise/Nordic capitalism? To me it would seem giving businesses economic freedom would not simultaneously allow the imposition of strict government regulations, environmental or otherwise. The same could be said for other "big government" policies. Also, I'm only curious for your explanation, I'm not trying to challenge you.

American notions of "free enterprise" are crazily right-wing. Nordic capitalism, in the United States, would be considered far-left. "Free enterprise" is not a pure free market--it simply refers to a market economy.
"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: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 5:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 4:17:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 4:15:25 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.
Feel free to ask questions.

Wouldn't strict environment regulations (presumably from government establishments) somewhat contradict free enterprise/Nordic capitalism? To me it would seem giving businesses economic freedom would not simultaneously allow the imposition of strict government regulations, environmental or otherwise. The same could be said for other "big government" policies. Also, I'm only curious for your explanation, I'm not trying to challenge you.

American notions of "free enterprise" are crazily right-wing. Nordic capitalism, in the United States, would be considered far-left. "Free enterprise" is not a pure free market--it simply refers to a market economy.

I see. So you simply believe businesses should have SOME control?
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:30:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
I am a left-leaning libertarian, because I value liberty above all else. Liberty of an individual, balanced by the liberty of other individuals, is the means by which I judge government policy.

Thus, I believe in preserving that individual's liberty, but am willing to compromise for the liberty of other individuals.
Examples?

But this "liberty" is not the liberty preached by the average libertarian in the United States--liberty is the absence of constraint, and constraint is exerted by *any* power structure. It is not limited to the power of the government. The decentralization of power is the redistribution of power that is centralized in any power structure, be it a corporation, or a government. Decentralization of power is, in my view, critical to ensuring maximal liberty. To allow people to enjoy liberty without harm, thus, I believe in regulation of corporations from selfish incentives that are counterproductive to this end, and in the assurance of certain fundamental requirements to actually enjoy liberty.

Regulations of corporations while well intended, only hurt business growth and the free market in general. Also note that some lobbyism and manipulative tactics have allowed regulations to benefit larger businesses, while hurting smaller ones. In a true free market on the other hand, it would be much easier for better quality small businesses to overthrow the "big guys" given how competition is unrestrained and regulations are not there to suffice as a burden. Basic regulations to prevent businesses from committing fraud may be necessary, but you can go further and cause regulations to serve as a burden.

Notable examples: http://www.businessinsider.com...

This means maximizing access to and quality of health care and education, a comprehensive social safety net, and minimal/nonexistent poverty.

The crony Capitalist mess of healthcare the US has is quite awful, but downright government healthcare makes things even worse. Government healthcare while good on paper, will give the government more influence and power over people's medical lives, and will also kill any competition. While there will be less corporate greed, medical advancements will significantly lower when being taken into the public sector. This happens with almost everything.

What is considered to be a social safety net only rises so high, that it becomes a government capturing net. It's yet another way for the government to interfere in one's life and shift things from free enterprise to the public sector. High taxes can also limit the free exchange of goods and services, curtailing economic growth, and lead to out of control government spending leading to more and more deficits. European welfare states are a notable example...

Poverty will go away if the poor feed off the government either, it might worsen as a result. (Notable example: The war on poverty).

In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education,

>Environmentalism to nerf business growth

Do keep in mind, when has centralized government education ever been a good thing? More private schools with vouchers and school choice would be a better alternative.

and a comprehensive social safety net.

As explained earlier, this will backfire as a government capture net.

I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.
What conventional definition? Your solutions are simply more decentralized socialism.

From the context of the United States, I would be considered a modern liberal. If I lived in the United States, I would probably support the Democratic Party in most instances. I thought Bernie Sanders was the best candidate in the election--I agree with most of his economic policy, and his foreign policy is the most reasonable I have heard from a presidential candidate in the United States.

Why? Bernie's policies would lead to out of control spending, economic authoritarianism, and a much larger welfare state leading to a bigger cycle of poverty, government dependency, and more international outsourcing of businesses to escape the restriction of a free economy.

I strongly oppose any attempt to censor speech, and firmly believe in the freedom of expression--I oppose "hate speech laws" in the context of almost every society, and I think almost every country has too many restrictions on "defamation." Similarly, I believe in the freedom to love whom you like, and to do whatever that does not harm any other individual. I am an egalitarian and firmly oppose social injustice, simply because it harms the liberty of individuals, but I do not agree with the modern social justice movement, and the SJW's who constantly censor people they disagree with, and dehumanize people with their racist rhetoric that pretends to be fighting racism.

Agreed.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 8:31:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Also, my sincere apologies if you were just looking to express your viewpoints instead of discussing and defending them against opposing ones.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 10:37:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

Utilitarianism. xD
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 8:31:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Also, my sincere apologies if you were just looking to express your viewpoints instead of discussing and defending them against opposing ones.

No, I'm willing to defend them. What's the point of a debating site otherwise?

I'll respond in a few hours.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:05:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

In the instance that it is at odds with maximizing happiness, of course I'll pick maximizing happiness, but I think that is very rarely the case.
"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
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:05:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

In the instance that it is at odds with maximizing happiness, of course I'll pick maximizing happiness, but I think that is very rarely the case.

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:05:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

In the instance that it is at odds with maximizing happiness, of course I'll pick maximizing happiness, but I think that is very rarely the case.

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.
"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
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:31:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:05:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

In the instance that it is at odds with maximizing happiness, of course I'll pick maximizing happiness, but I think that is very rarely the case.

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.

Happiness is a particular neurological state. If we could hook large numbers of people up to life support, in a constantly induced state of unconscious euphoria, would that be ideal for you? If this process could be automated, would it be a desirable future for the human species?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 2:47:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:31:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:05:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 7:10:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why do you value liberty over human happiness? Perhaps you think that maximizing liberty is the best way to promote human happiness, but why do you even allow for the possibility that by putting liberty before everything else, you might find yourself in instances where your unshakable advocacy of liberty is at odds with maximizing happiness?

In the instance that it is at odds with maximizing happiness, of course I'll pick maximizing happiness, but I think that is very rarely the case.

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.

Happiness is a particular neurological state. If we could hook large numbers of people up to life support, in a constantly induced state of unconscious euphoria, would that be ideal for you? If this process could be automated, would it be a desirable future for the human species?

No, unless people consent to that -- because achieving a "positive mental state" is contingent on the people desiring that. Desirability is the basis for decision making here.
"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
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 3:09:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 2:47:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:31:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.

Happiness is a particular neurological state. If we could hook large numbers of people up to life support, in a constantly induced state of unconscious euphoria, would that be ideal for you? If this process could be automated, would it be a desirable future for the human species?

No, unless people consent to that -- because achieving a "positive mental state" is contingent on the people desiring that. Desirability is the basis for decision making here.

So isn't a political system which pursues maximized happiness necessarily oppressive to those who don't operate on that metric? To those who do not desire happiness first, who actually value other things, many of which reduce happiness, above happiness itself? And if happiness is prioritized over freedom, where does 'consent' come in to the picture?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 3:24:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 3:09:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:47:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:31:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.

Happiness is a particular neurological state. If we could hook large numbers of people up to life support, in a constantly induced state of unconscious euphoria, would that be ideal for you? If this process could be automated, would it be a desirable future for the human species?

No, unless people consent to that -- because achieving a "positive mental state" is contingent on the people desiring that. Desirability is the basis for decision making here.

So isn't a political system which pursues maximized happiness necessarily oppressive to those who don't operate on that metric? To those who do not desire happiness first, who actually value other things, many of which reduce happiness, above happiness itself? And if happiness is prioritized over freedom, where does 'consent' come in to the picture?

The ultimate end is not "happiness" -- it is "what people desire." The traditional definition of "happiness" is "any desirable mental state," which is the definition I'm following.
"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
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 3:45:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 3:24:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 3:09:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:47:43 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:31:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:19:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/22/2016 2:18:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Do you think that a world with maximal happiness would be enjoyable for most people?

Define "enjoyable" - because that "enjoyment" is what I'm trying to achieve. By means of ascribing to societal values, probably.

Happiness is a particular neurological state. If we could hook large numbers of people up to life support, in a constantly induced state of unconscious euphoria, would that be ideal for you? If this process could be automated, would it be a desirable future for the human species?

No, unless people consent to that -- because achieving a "positive mental state" is contingent on the people desiring that. Desirability is the basis for decision making here.

So isn't a political system which pursues maximized happiness necessarily oppressive to those who don't operate on that metric? To those who do not desire happiness first, who actually value other things, many of which reduce happiness, above happiness itself? And if happiness is prioritized over freedom, where does 'consent' come in to the picture?

The ultimate end is not "happiness" -- it is "what people desire." The traditional definition of "happiness" is "any desirable mental state," which is the definition I'm following.

Do you think that what people desire can be modified, and if so, ought it to be, either by themselves or by the society around them?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 11:38:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 3:45:35 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Do you think that what people desire can be modified, and if so, ought it to be, either by themselves or by the society around them?

Yes.
"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
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 9:01:40 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 8:30:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Examples?

The absence of material resources deprive individuals of their ability to exercise/enjoy liberty, and I desire to take action to help reduce that by means of a "welfare state," or whatever you want to call it.

Regulations of corporations while well intended, only hurt business growth and the free market in general. Also note that some lobbyism and manipulative tactics have allowed regulations to benefit larger businesses, while hurting smaller ones. In a true free market on the other hand, it would be much easier for better quality small businesses to overthrow the "big guys" given how competition is unrestrained and regulations are not there to suffice as a burden. Basic regulations to prevent businesses from committing fraud may be necessary, but you can go further and cause regulations to serve as a burden.

I do not deny that unnecessary regulations are harmful... but there is no doubt that there needs to be regulation for the purpose of workers' rights, and environmental protection, among others.

The crony Capitalist mess of healthcare the US has is quite awful, but downright government healthcare makes things even worse. Government healthcare while good on paper, will give the government more influence and power over people's medical lives, and will also kill any competition. While there will be less corporate greed, medical advancements will significantly lower when being taken into the public sector. This happens with almost everything.

I never proposed a system of socialized medicine. What I do want to work on is expanding Obamacare, establishing a public sector alternative for health insurance and care if necessary, and expanding access by other means. It is possible to maintain high quality under a public system, too. For instance, in India, public hospitals are technologically advanced, and advanced in quality of doctors.

What is considered to be a social safety net only rises so high, that it becomes a government capturing net. It's yet another way for the government to interfere in one's life and shift things from free enterprise to the public sector. High taxes can also limit the free exchange of goods and services, curtailing economic growth, and lead to out of control government spending leading to more and more deficits. European welfare states are a notable example...

The Nordic model is able to sustain economic growth in those countries, for instance. I'm fine with the "free exchange of goods and services" -- as an example, I do not oppose the TPP in any manner from the perspective of the United States. Free trade is fine, and positive for the economy. The problem with high taxes is actually ensuring they do not disproportionately harm efficiency, which means the highest rate should be targeted at the greatest wealth-earners.

Poverty will go away if the poor feed off the government either, it might worsen as a result. (Notable example: The war on poverty).

Government welfare is mismanaged - I agree.

>Environmentalism to nerf business growth

And save lives. Set your priorities straight.

As explained earlier, this will backfire as a government capture net.

Give me some demonstrable harms to human welfare as a result of this.

What conventional definition? Your solutions are simply more decentralized socialism.

"Socialism" is society controlling the means of production entirely, or, in some cases, the government controlling the means of production. I don't support that. I believe in a regulated market economy (i.e. a mixed economy).

Why? Bernie's policies would lead to out of control spending, economic authoritarianism, and a much larger welfare state leading to a bigger cycle of poverty, government dependency, and more international outsourcing of businesses to escape the restriction of a free economy.

Which ones are you talking about?

If he was elected, I still strongly doubt a single-payer system of health care would be implemented. I'm fine with making college education tuition free, there's no harm there. His infrastructure plan -- which is basically the same as Clinton's -- is objectively good for the economy and for the people, and literally every major economist agrees. His foreign policy is significantly better than most I've seen, though I disagree with him there on many counts.

He admittedly has some policies I strongly disagree with -- unusually high income taxes, the TPP, "auditing" the Federal Reserve, a $15/hr minimum wage, and some egregious underestimation of the costs of his policies -- but he acknowledged certain fundamental economic truths that would have helped the economy.
"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
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 3:56:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 9:01:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/21/2016 8:30:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Examples?

The absence of material resources deprive individuals of their ability to exercise/enjoy liberty, and I desire to take action to help reduce that by means of a "welfare state," or whatever you want to call it.

How about private charity?

How about the people whom don't work and do little to gain materials/resources to comfortably live?

The idea of a welfare state while not seeming bad on paper, dangerously comes close to having people dependent on the government instead of dependent on themselves to live. In fact, laissez-faire free market economics would actually do more to solve things such as poverty better than the liberal welfare state. For example, people would get help through private charities and more job opportunity coming from a free market would definitely help them as the economy grows.

Regulations of corporations while well intended, only hurt business growth and the free market in general. Also note that some lobbyism and manipulative tactics have allowed regulations to benefit larger businesses, while hurting smaller ones. In a true free market on the other hand, it would be much easier for better quality small businesses to overthrow the "big guys" given how competition is unrestrained and regulations are not there to suffice as a burden. Basic regulations to prevent businesses from committing fraud may be necessary, but you can go further and cause regulations to serve as a burden.

I do not deny that unnecessary regulations are harmful... but there is no doubt that there needs to be regulation for the purpose of workers' rights, and environmental protection, among others.

Workers rights can self-improve in a relatively free market, especially given workers can assemble to protest, or quit their jobs for a new one. Companies can easily take advantage and offer a job with better working conditions to workers working for companies that may not treat them so well.

Despite this, I would still support some basic legal requirements for workers' rights.

Harsh environmental protection is detrimental to economic growth, and more eco-friendly technology has improved quite a bit with technology becoming better.

The crony Capitalist mess of healthcare the US has is quite awful, but downright government healthcare makes things even worse. Government healthcare while good on paper, will give the government more influence and power over people's medical lives, and will also kill any competition. While there will be less corporate greed, medical advancements will significantly lower when being taken into the public sector. This happens with almost everything.

I never proposed a system of socialized medicine. What I do want to work on is expanding Obamacare, establishing a public sector alternative for health insurance and care if necessary, and expanding access by other means. It is possible to maintain high quality under a public system, too.

Except that Obamacare was in fact a disaster, and is definitely expensive. So much for the "affordable" care act. Expanding on Obamacare shall result in nothing but a bigger mess of America's awful healthcare system, and it may increase crony Capitalism while at it. Furthermore, the government getting involves in healthcare hurts the free market and individual liberty. Think to yourself, must the promise of security be worth giving up liberty?

Regarding India, I am not necessarily a fan of implementing anything like India's system. I am unsure how well government healthcare has helped those in poverty or rural villages in India, but it is quite an awful idea to let the government exist alongside with market healthcare. I am unaware of the situation in India however, so I do not have any alternative in mind.

For instance, in India, public hospitals are technologically advanced, and advanced in quality of doctors.

This is because private hospitals can not compete with public hospitals in India. Public health services in India are basically a government-funded mega-corporation. As a result, it is without a doubt that the mega-corporation of public health services will out-compete private health services.

What is considered to be a social safety net only rises so high, that it becomes a government capturing net. It's yet another way for the government to interfere in one's life and shift things from free enterprise to the public sector. High taxes can also limit the free exchange of goods and services, curtailing economic growth, and lead to out of control government spending leading to more and more deficits. European welfare states are a notable example...

The Nordic model is able to sustain economic growth in those countries, for instance. I'm fine with the "free exchange of goods and services" -- as an example, I do not oppose the TPP in any manner from the perspective of the United States. Free trade is fine, and positive for the economy.

Free exchange of goods and services is a very general term, and is not limited to free trade. Shifting the exchange of "things" - as so to speak, to the public sector, will get rid of "free" in exchange.

In other words, the free exchange of goods and services doesn't exist when major parts of the economy are shifted towards the public sector.

The problem with high taxes is actually ensuring they do not disproportionately harm efficiency, which means the highest rate should be targeted at the greatest wealth-earners.

Robinhood style taxation seems good on paper to tax the rich heavy amounts. Idealism aside however, the rich do play a large role in the economy. The top wealthiest people are in charge of large businesses and heavy investment into several industries (which was how they obtained their wealth in the first place). As a result of over-taxation of the rich, the economy may suffer to some extent.

Poverty will go away if the poor feed off the government either, it might worsen as a result. (Notable example: The war on poverty).

Government welfare is mismanaged - I agree.

Fair enough

>Environmentalism to nerf business growth

And save lives. Set your priorities straight.

Read above.

As explained earlier, this will backfire as a government capture net.

Give me some demonstrable harms to human welfare as a result of this.

Dependence on the government?
Also, how about private charities?

What conventional definition? Your solutions are simply more decentralized socialism.

"Socialism" is society controlling the means of production entirely,

Only in theory does this happen. Society as whole can simply NOT control the means of production, and Socialist/Communist countries have only given an illusion that they do. Please elaborate on how it is possible for society to control the means of production. Essentially, it would be an utterly stupid and perhaps impossible idea to have individuals make decisions and control entire industries.

or, in some cases, the government controlling the means of production. I don't support that.

In all cases perhaps, because the means of production can not be collectively controlled.

I believe in a regulated market economy (i.e. a mixed economy).

All economies are mixed to an extent, but I would definitely advocate for maximum prosperity, innovation, and individual liberty through a more purer market economy with little Socialism, government intervention, and cronyism.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 4:00:05 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Why? Bernie's policies would lead to out of control spending, economic authoritarianism, and a much larger welfare state leading to a bigger cycle of poverty, government dependency, and more international outsourcing of businesses to escape the restriction of a free economy.

Which ones are you talking about?

If he was elected, I still strongly doubt a single-payer system of health care would be implemented. I'm fine with making college education tuition free, there's no harm there. His infrastructure plan -- which is basically the same as Clinton's -- is objectively good for the economy and for the people, and literally every major economist agrees.

Infrastructure is one of the only exceptions where the government hasn't entirely screwed up.

His foreign policy is significantly better than most I've seen, though I disagree with him there on many counts.

Fair enough, I personally don't have too much objection to his foreign policy.

He admittedly has some policies I strongly disagree with -- unusually high income taxes, the TPP, "auditing" the Federal Reserve, a $15/hr minimum wage, and some egregious underestimation of the costs of his policies...

All things that will take a heavy hit on the economy.

...but he acknowledged certain fundamental economic truths that would have helped the economy.

Like what? Sandernomics are heavily cringe worthy. All I hear is "Top 10%, Denmark, Wall Street, political revolution, change, etc."
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 11:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 3:56:35 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Dependence on the government?

It's not impossible to frame a welfare possibility that still maintains an incentive to work, and thus increase overall efficiency.

Also, how about private charities?

They don't work nearly as well in tackling poverty. There's no doubt that Obamacare has been responsible for saving lives, for instance.

In all cases perhaps, because the means of production can not be collectively controlled.

Possibly, but I will note that there is no non-communist socialist state in existence.

All economies are mixed to an extent, but I would definitely advocate for maximum prosperity, innovation, and individual liberty through a more purer market economy with little Socialism, government intervention, and cronyism.

None of what you posted has any evidence to justify it.

The reality is that government intervention in health care and education works, and we've seen that in the Nordic countries. We can see that in multiple Indian states, too, emphasizing on Kerala. The literacy rate there: 95%, the highest in India, because of an efficient public sector system. Multiple states have mainly private sector systems, and lower literacy rates. The same goes with, as an example, Finland, which has 100% literacy.

Similarly, look at the French model of health care: (1) the pharmaceutical industry has influence over research/innovation, which works, and (2) accessibility is focused on by the government. This maintains good quality universal health care, and at the same time allows doctors multiple privileges. While they earn only 60% of the American salary, at the same time (1) they do not pay tuition fees at med school, and (2) they pay lower tax rates, which is virtually a form of government payment, which, when you add it all up, has a net greater amount of money gained than American doctors.
"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
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 1:05:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
I am a left-leaning libertarian, because I value liberty above all else. Liberty of an individual, balanced by the liberty of other individuals, is the means by which I judge government policy.

Philosophically, I am a rule utilitarian. I believe in maximizing benefit, and minimizing harm. This varies depending on multiple conditions that society is subject to, making government more of a practical concern than a moral one (to the extent that the "practical concern" affects moral ends). I desire social stability, and social order, to ensure that positive mental states are enjoyed by all, and therefore believe in legislating according to the values of the society and the "wants" of the people--and the "wants" of the people are captured best in balancing the right to liberty. Liberty is the absence of constraint, the ability of an individual to carry out a desire, and maximizing the fulfillment of desires is the ultimate utilitarian end. Thus, I believe in preserving that individual's liberty, but am willing to compromise for the liberty of other individuals.

But this "liberty" is not the liberty preached by the average libertarian in the United States--liberty is the absence of constraint, and constraint is exerted by *any* power structure. It is not limited to the power of the government. The decentralization of power is the redistribution of power that is centralized in any power structure, be it a corporation, or a government. Decentralization of power is, in my view, critical to ensuring maximal liberty. To allow people to enjoy liberty without harm, thus, I believe in regulation of corporations from selfish incentives that are counterproductive to this end, and in the assurance of certain fundamental requirements to actually enjoy liberty. This means maximizing access to and quality of health care and education, a comprehensive social safety net, and minimal/nonexistent poverty.

In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.

I'm not a fan of central planning either, but I don't think central planning is necessarily equal to the centralization of power. Hell, the original conception of Lenin's Vanguardism was democratic and there are those who argue for a centrally planned economy ran by direct democracy.

And why do you think decentralized planning isn't good enough to ensure human welfare?

This decentralization of power is not within the context of a *single* society--it even affects my view of international relations. I am opposed to hegemony, and typically against military intervention except in certain specific circumstances (e.g. combating ISIS). I do not like the excuse of "democracy" in order to achieve further global hegemony. But at the same time, there have been past interventions that have been successful--such as the 1971 Indian invasion of East Pakistan, which halted the Bangladeshi genocide, and the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to remove Pol Pot from power, thus halting the Cambodian genocide.

From the context of the United States, I would be considered a modern liberal. If I lived in the United States, I would probably support the Democratic Party in most instances. I thought Bernie Sanders was the best candidate in the election--I agree with most of his economic policy, and his foreign policy is the most reasonable I have heard from a presidential candidate in the United States.

In the context of India, there is no individual politician, or party, that I support, and my ideology is incongruent with all the major neoliberal or conservative parties (which make up the vast majority of political parties in India). I am center-left by a European standard, or a full-fledged leftist by an American standard. In India, I am fine with capitalism prevailing, and the private sector having most influence in agriculture and industry. It works, with a few exceptions. But I firmly believe in government intervention with regard to health care, education, and social security, which are all necessary in the context of India because we have an unhealthy, uneducated workforce in many parts of the country--and because it is a matter of basic human dignity, and welfare.

I strongly oppose any attempt to censor speech, and firmly believe in the freedom of expression--I oppose "hate speech laws" in the context of almost every society, and I think almost every country has too many restrictions on "defamation." Similarly, I believe in the freedom to love whom you like, and to do whatever that does not harm any other individual. I am an egalitarian and firmly oppose social injustice, simply because it harms the liberty of individuals, but I do not agree with the modern social justice movement, and the SJW's who constantly censor people they disagree with, and dehumanize people with their racist rhetoric that pretends to be fighting racism.

Feel free to ask questions.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 1:43:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/25/2016 1:05:36 PM, n7 wrote:
I'm not a fan of central planning either, but I don't think central planning is necessarily equal to the centralization of power. Hell, the original conception of Lenin's Vanguardism was democratic and there are those who argue for a centrally planned economy ran by direct democracy.

Central planning is when a single body of authority has power over production, which is the same as "central power." Centralization of power does not mean totalitarianism.

And why do you think decentralized planning isn't good enough to ensure human welfare?

I don't understand what you mean by that.
"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
Notsocertain
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 2:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 3:54:37 PM, tejretics wrote:
I am a left-leaning libertarian, because I value liberty above all else. Liberty of an individual, balanced by the liberty of other individuals, is the means by which I judge government policy.

Philosophically, I am a rule utilitarian. I believe in maximizing benefit, and minimizing harm. This varies depending on multiple conditions that society is subject to, making government more of a practical concern than a moral one (to the extent that the "practical concern" affects moral ends). I desire social stability, and social order, to ensure that positive mental states are enjoyed by all, and therefore believe in legislating according to the values of the society and the "wants" of the people--and the "wants" of the people are captured best in balancing the right to liberty. Liberty is the absence of constraint, the ability of an individual to carry out a desire, and maximizing the fulfillment of desires is the ultimate utilitarian end. Thus, I believe in preserving that individual's liberty, but am willing to compromise for the liberty of other individuals.

But this "liberty" is not the liberty preached by the average libertarian in the United States--liberty is the absence of constraint, and constraint is exerted by *any* power structure. It is not limited to the power of the government. The decentralization of power is the redistribution of power that is centralized in any power structure, be it a corporation, or a government. Decentralization of power is, in my view, critical to ensuring maximal liberty. To allow people to enjoy liberty without harm, thus, I believe in regulation of corporations from selfish incentives that are counterproductive to this end, and in the assurance of certain fundamental requirements to actually enjoy liberty. This means maximizing access to and quality of health care and education, a comprehensive social safety net, and minimal/nonexistent poverty.

In order to achieve those ends, I believe in Nordic capitalism, an economic system with free enterprise, supplemented with strict environmental regulations, universal access to health care and education, and a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, I am not a "socialist"--because the conventional definition of socialism (i.e. state-achieved socialism) requires absolute centralization of power, however "decentralized" the planning is, and is not practical to ensuring the welfare of the people. Human welfare is necessary in order to ensure the liberty in question.

This decentralization of power is not within the context of a *single* society--it even affects my view of international relations. I am opposed to hegemony, and typically against military intervention except in certain specific circumstances (e.g. combating ISIS). I do not like the excuse of "democracy" in order to achieve further global hegemony. But at the same time, there have been past interventions that have been successful--such as the 1971 Indian invasion of East Pakistan, which halted the Bangladeshi genocide, and the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to remove Pol Pot from power, thus halting the Cambodian genocide.

From the context of the United States, I would be considered a modern liberal. If I lived in the United States, I would probably support the Democratic Party in most instances. I thought Bernie Sanders was the best candidate in the election--I agree with most of his economic policy, and his foreign policy is the most reasonable I have heard from a presidential candidate in the United States.

In the context of India, there is no individual politician, or party, that I support, and my ideology is incongruent with all the major neoliberal or conservative parties (which make up the vast majority of political parties in India). I am center-left by a European standard, or a full-fledged leftist by an American standard. In India, I am fine with capitalism prevailing, and the private sector having most influence in agriculture and industry. It works, with a few exceptions. But I firmly believe in government intervention with regard to health care, education, and social security, which are all necessary in the context of India because we have an unhealthy, uneducated workforce in many parts of the country--and because it is a matter of basic human dignity, and welfare.

I strongly oppose any attempt to censor speech, and firmly believe in the freedom of expression--I oppose "hate speech laws" in the context of almost every society, and I think almost every country has too many restrictions on "defamation." Similarly, I believe in the freedom to love whom you like, and to do whatever that does not harm any other individual. I am an egalitarian and firmly oppose social injustice, simply because it harms the liberty of individuals, but I do not agree with the modern social justice movement, and the SJW's who constantly censor people they disagree with, and dehumanize people with their racist rhetoric that pretends to be fighting racism.

Feel free to ask questions.

Hello,
Sorry to have have quoted your entire post, which I enjoyed, and with which I feel a good amount of affinity. I'm most interested in your assessment of "SJWs" dehumanizing racist rhetoric, and how you distance yourself from the modern social justice movement. Could you please provide some examples of the rhetoric you to point to and elaborate on your disagreements with the modern social justice movement?
Many thanks!
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 2:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 2:14:10 AM, Notsocertain wrote:
Hello,
Sorry to have have quoted your entire post, which I enjoyed, and with which I feel a good amount of affinity. I'm most interested in your assessment of "SJWs" dehumanizing racist rhetoric, and how you distance yourself from the modern social justice movement. Could you please provide some examples of the rhetoric you to point to and elaborate on your disagreements with the modern social justice movement?
Many thanks!

I'm sure you've heard of the term "SJW," and it is a crude term originally coined by members of the political right referring to the near-extremist ideology of the modern social justice movement. I'm using it in the same sense.

I'll start out by saying that I believe social justice--based on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.--is definitely an important issue to tackle. Social injustices are harmful, and there is still some deep level of social injustice in that regard, in multiple societies today, including the United States, which is comparitively progressive, but with special emphasis on the East, including where I live (India). The point is some people take it "too far." What "take it too far" means has little to do with their ends, in most cases--though it often does--and has more to do with their means.

Their means are often ineffectual in accomplishing "social justice" of any sort, such as random rioting and protesting, with the sort of emotional aggression expressed by groups such as BlackLivesMatter, which runs on rhetoric that tries and fails to combat racism simply because it involves random interruptions of activists, and censorship of any disagreement. But the irritating means are not the only problem. In addition, these SJW's often engage in real delusion... attempts to solve the issue which are counterproductive, such as "privilege theory," and affirmative action which ultimately is a tool to exercise more power and does nothing for the disadvantaged communities in question. To push forward notions of "privilege," they also *exaggerate* the level of disparity severely. The lens by which they look at these issues--privilege, microaggressions, censorship of speech--is fundamentally corroded and does nothing to solve the issue, because they fail to acknowledge a few fundamental realities, such as the fact that economic issues cause more disparity between the races than people being racist bigots.

Sometimes, the ends these SJW's try to achieve are just as silly. One such glaring end--which has emerged in recent years due to some obscure postmodern philosophy that is either deeply misunderstood or genuinely meaningless nonsense (more of the former)--is the censorship of speech, which suggests that certain forms of speech are inherently demeaning and should therefore be prevented in any means possible. This is objectively harmful because it represents the curtailment of an essential liberty, and at the same time asserts a sort of "epistemic" arrogance (i.e. overconfidence in the truth of one's worldview). The censorship of speech of this sort has notably negative consequences, such as eventually restricting criticism of certain organizations and falling as a slippery slope into authoritarianism. The sheer degree of arrogance causes anyone who disagrees with them, more often than not legitimately, to be a "bigot," and they completely block out that view, which means protesters force universities into complying with ultimately ineffectual university courses, "trigger warnings" (which are demonstrably harmful to psychologically affected individuals) and preventing the speeches/addresses of all those thus called "bigots." This can even destroy the lives of perfectly ordinary individuals.

But this censorship of speech goes even further, with notions of "microaggressions" and similar ideas rooting themselves in highly obscure postmodern philosophy. These "microaggressions" are essentially "things that people might take offense to due to their being a member of a disadvantaged race." But present in these microaggressions are things such as discouraging the statement "there is only one race, the human race." because it "ignores racial reality." It also engages in the prevention of ordinary everyday happenings such as a room consisting of only white people--so what if there are only white people in that room? The cause isn't necessarily racism--in fact, more often than not, it has more to do with population. Things like this make people categorize races and genders all the more, and makes a person, for instance, see a friend as first a "black friend" rather than just a "friend," which dehumanizes people.

All this makes me despise the postmodern left--what Dave Rubin and others accurately term the "regressive left"--despite the fact that I would pretty much support the same presidential candidate as most of them (i.e. Bernie Sanders), and the same party (i.e. the Democratic Party).
"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