Where do your politics come from?

[SOCALHUSKER]

I would (with respect to you, SOCAL) agree with this. You state in the quote up above that you, "… have yet to encounter any arguments or philosophy that can prove anarchy is illogical, unjust or contradictory. Better yet, I have yet to hear an argument that could convince me that the free market needs regulation or planning, that any action can be beneficial if it requires forcing individuals to comply at gunpoint or that I do not know what is best for me."

 

You have been presented logical, real-world arguments which show that the philosophies you espouse are not practical, real-world realities, you just don't wish to believe in them. You have your bugaboo about politics and the free market. I have mine about religion. Neither of us hurt anyone with our beliefs as long as we don't force them on anyone else, but we're both examples of the old saw, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Logical? What is logical and/or non-contradictory about using violence and theft against individuals in order to prevent the same? How can one protect property rights while at the same time violating them? Please answer those in a logical manner?

 

Also, what real world-realities have been presented to refute the philosophy I propose? All I have witnessed are a string of false dichotomies that are commonly regurgitated by those who support government and who simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that government does not produce anything that it has not already stolen, has not solved anything that man himself has not already solved, nor can it ever begin to attempt to undertake the role which it is supposedly created to achieve. And you claim that I'm blind?

[knapplc]

First of all, there is absolutely nothing utopian about individuals being allowed to voluntarily make their own decisions/choices, and either benefitting or suffering, as long as those decisions/choices do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same.

 

The key word is "allowed." Nobody thinks it's a Utopian fantasy to allow people to make their own decisions and choices. What is pure fantasy is expecting everyone to make choices that do not, as you say, " do not infringe upon other individual's property and their ability to do the same."

 

You allow that "… sadists, perverts and violent individuals who do and will continue to pursue the ventures you describe will (n)ever be completely stopped." Yet you fail to follow that to its logical conclusion, that there are times when banding together to prevent being overrun by bands of these very people is necessary. That "banding together" requires organization, which is governance. You acknowledge everything up to the word "governance" because it doesn't suit your argument, but it's the reality that mankind has come up against from beyond recorded history.

 

You continually advocate for no government, and that's simply not possible. What everyone else is saying is that we need lessgovernment, and that is wholly rational.

[SOCALHUSKER]

It keeps coming up that what I state or believe is not based on reality, which could not be further from the truth. In fact, property rights, non-aggression and self-ownership are not only completely based on reality, but are vital for the continuence of life, which happens to be the standard measurement of reality. I don't pretend to believe that a magic transformation to an anarchist/free society is instantaneously possible. That if government ended today that all the problems of society would be solved and everyone would have full knowledge of property rights and respect for them. Yes, it is inevitable that if government crashed today, that disaster and chaos would ensue. Not as a result of anarchy, because people do not want to be free, or because humans are naturally violent; but rather due to the vast amount of individuals who are completely dependent upon a coercive monopoly and lack all means of being accountable for their own actions and choices. However, this does not change the fact that reality consists of the way things are and the way things ought to be. Just because things are done a certain way does not make it is right nor does it make it the only possible way. Sure, the unknown is scary but it is also the conquering of the unknown that creates and develops the prosperity needed for the advancement of mankind.

 

It should come as no suprise that government uses a wide range of propaganda schemes, ranging from public education to media control, to spread lies and fears that prevent individuals from actually thinking for themselves and instead to rely solely on government. However, the fact is, and history is proof, that government is not reliable and instead is an unsustainable, self-eating monster that preys upon the productive members of society to eat and breathe. Without productive people government could not exist, however without the parasite known as government, individuals would still be productive and rightfully more so. When one actually discovers this, along with how illogcal, inefficient and contradictory the very idea of government is, the road to shaping reality they way it ought to be becomes much more clear and a whole lot shorter.

 

The evolution of free men will require much time and effort. However, when the majority of individuals are educated enough to see things for the way they ought to be, to understand the responsibility that comes with being free, to understand the principles of property rights, non-aggression and self-ownership and to understand that they can make decisions for themselves there will be no turning back. It is simply my goal to speed up this process, refute and dispell the myths and lies propogated by government and those who support it, and one day hope to live in a society that exists the way things ought to be. There's nothing utopian or fantastical about that.

[Husker_x]

I'll reply to SOCAL's post in another thread which will start with his longer post and contain my response in a reply.

 

No need to derail this thread entirely.

[jnkyrdoff6]

My political views come from whatever I think. Both of my parents are a conservative, but I take things from both sides. There are many topics that I just take an "I Don't Care" attitude towards. Abortion, for example. I believe it's whatever the woman feels like doing. I don't think people should get in your face and tell you what you should do with your life and with your baby. Just do what you want to do.

 

Or for gay marriage. I don't necessarily like seeing homosexuals together, but I have no problem with them getting married. If they want to do it, just let them do it. If they can love one another and raise a child the correct way, then I'm completely fine with it.

 

There are obviously more difficult topics to wrap our heads around, but I try my best to read up on both sides of the argument and then see what I think. If I listen to a Fox news broadcast, then I'll go and find the most liberal S.O.B. I can and I'll see what he has to say about it.

I know what you mean by the "I Don't Care" attitude. I'm so laissez faire, in everything I do, it's ridiculous. I remember once this summer when I was umping a softball game there was some name calling going on. I just let it go, and pretended I didn't hear it. Eventually though it erupted into a fight that I had to break up. I let the game get out of hand in that way. I think generally it's a good attitude to have, but sometimes you have to intervene, as much as it pains me to say it. I'm trying my best to intervene as little as possible though. A couple of weeks ago, while on spring break, some of my friends noticed one of my friends wives drinking while she was breast feeding. I'd known this had been going on. In fact, I also know she smoked grass while she was pregnant, and probably still does. They were going to say something to her, but I prevented it, telling them that it was none of our business. The husband was there. In my opinion it's between them, and is something I shouldn't concern myself with. That doesn't mean I think it's right, but who am I to tell them otherwise?

[knapplc]

I moved a bunch of off-topic stuff to THIS THREAD. Let's try to keep the conversations from spilling over if we can.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I moved a bunch of off-topic stuff to THIS THREAD. Let's try to keep the conversations from spilling over if we can.

I appreciate that. I had my apprehensions about posting this topic in the first place because I was sure it was going to get bogged down in a general philosophy discussion. It's not that I don't think that kind of thing is necessary. It's just that I had hoped it would stay in the "How would you describe your political views" thread. I noticed it's named SOCAL's razor. I'm unfamiliar with that expression, I guess. I had to look over it like 10 times to make sure that's what it said. What does that mean? My mind is racing with possibilities.

[knapplc]

It's a play on the principle "Occam's Razor" which states, in essence, that when all other factors are equal, the simplest answer is most likely to be correct.

[jnkyrdoff6]

It's a play on the principle "Occam's Razor" which states, in essence, that when all other factors are equal, the simplest answer is most likely to be correct.

Oh cool. I had no idea. I'd heard it before on Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century, a cartoon series, when I was a kid. It's nice to be able to connect things like that. When I read my first Sherlock Holmes book, The Hound of the Baskervilles I was sure I'd find that quote in there, but I never did. The cartoon series must've taken it from that Occam dude.

[jnkyrdoff6]

My political views come from whatever I think. Both of my parents are a conservative, but I take things from both sides. There are many topics that I just take an "I Don't Care" attitude towards. Abortion, for example. I believe it's whatever the woman feels like doing. I don't think people should get in your face and tell you what you should do with your life and with your baby. Just do what you want to do.

 

Or for gay marriage. I don't necessarily like seeing homosexuals together, but I have no problem with them getting married. If they want to do it, just let them do it. If they can love one another and raise a child the correct way, then I'm completely fine with it.

 

There are obviously more difficult topics to wrap our heads around, but I try my best to read up on both sides of the argument and then see what I think. If I listen to a Fox news broadcast, then I'll go and find the most liberal S.O.B. I can and I'll see what he has to say about it.

I know what you mean by the "I Don't Care" attitude. I'm so laissez faire, in everything I do, it's ridiculous. I remember once this summer when I was umping a softball game there was some name calling going on. I just let it go, and pretended I didn't hear it. Eventually though it erupted into a fight that I had to break up. I let the game get out of hand in that way. I think generally it's a good attitude to have, but sometimes you have to intervene, as much as it pains me to say it. I'm trying my best to intervene as little as possible though. A couple of weeks ago, while on spring break, some of my friends noticed one of my friends wives drinking while she was breast feeding. I'd known this had been going on. In fact, I also know she smoked grass while she was pregnant, and probably still does. They were going to say something to her, but I prevented it, telling them that it was none of our business. The husband was there. In my opinion it's between them, and is something I shouldn't concern myself with. That doesn't mean I think it's right, but who am I to tell them otherwise?

Another example of how this attitude has gotten me in trouble comes from umping too. I was umping a baseball game this summer for a 9-10 year old tournament. It was Syracuse vs. someone else. In Syracuse they play with weird rules until legion ball. I've heard them called p@ssy rules. Anyhow, the Syracuse coaches were mad because we were playing by standard rules, and they took it out on me. They complained about every ball and strike I called that went against them. It was a long game for me. I never said anything because they never came out and formally complained to me, but I mean, they were telling their fans they wanted to fight me and everything. I just let it go. Towards the end of the game the head coach finally came up and got in my face, and I just exploded on him. I told him he "had to be f*ck*ng kidding me!" I mean, it was bubbling up inside me. He was astonished. After I said that he questioned what kind of an example I was setting for the kids, and I said in essence, "yeah, you're really setting an example. You're teaching them that when things don't go their way in life, they should just complain about it. Don't try harder or anything. His team was clearly better, talent-wise; they should've won. Then I told him that if he wanted to fight he could name the time and place. Of course, he was all talk in that way.

 

I definitely regret the way this went. When I reflect on it, I should've made a stand from the get-go. It's another instance of my non-interventionist principles clashing with what needs to be done at the time. I have other stories of me and someone from Syracuse exchanging words. It seems like whenever I meet someone from Syracuse we butt heads. I don't know if it's them or me. I think half on them are just raised to be a$$holes. It could be me; that's a different subject, though.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Another example of how this attitude has gotten me in trouble comes from umping too. I was umping a baseball game this summer for a 9-10 year old tournament. It was Syracuse vs. someone else. In Syracuse they play with weird rules until legion ball. I've heard them called p@ssy rules. Anyhow, the Syracuse coaches were mad because we were playing by standard rules, and they took it out on me. They complained about every ball and strike I called that went against them. It was a long game for me. I never said anything because they never came out and formally complained to me, but I mean, they were telling their fans they wanted to fight me and everything. I just let it go. Towards the end of the game the head coach finally came up and got in my face, and I just exploded on him. I told him he "had to be f*ck*ng kidding me!" I mean, it was bubbling up inside me. He was astonished. After I said that he questioned what kind of an example I was setting for the kids, and I said in essence, "yeah, you're really setting an example. You're teaching them that when things don't go their way in life, they should just complain about it. Don't try harder or anything. His team was clearly better, talent-wise; they should've won. Then I told him that if he wanted to fight he could name the time and place. Of course, he was all talk in that way.

 

I definitely regret the way this went. When I reflect on it, I should've made a stand from the get-go. It's another instance of my non-interventionist principles clashing with what needs to be done at the time. I have other stories of me and someone from Syracuse exchanging words. It seems like whenever I meet someone from Syracuse we butt heads. I don't know if it's them or me. I think half on them are just raised to be a$$holes. It could be me; that's a different subject, though.

There's a difference between non-intervention and doing the job you are being paid, through voluntary employment nonetheless, to do. As an umpire you are essentially paid to mediate the game, interpret the rules and make the calls. Both teams coaches voluntarily agreed to play the game under those circumstances and you would be well within your rights, as an umpire and a person, to tell them to lock it up as soon as the first complaints surfaced.

 

The breastfeeding? That's another topic altogether.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Another example of how this attitude has gotten me in trouble comes from umping too. I was umping a baseball game this summer for a 9-10 year old tournament. It was Syracuse vs. someone else. In Syracuse they play with weird rules until legion ball. I've heard them called p@ssy rules. Anyhow, the Syracuse coaches were mad because we were playing by standard rules, and they took it out on me. They complained about every ball and strike I called that went against them. It was a long game for me. I never said anything because they never came out and formally complained to me, but I mean, they were telling their fans they wanted to fight me and everything. I just let it go. Towards the end of the game the head coach finally came up and got in my face, and I just exploded on him. I told him he "had to be f*ck*ng kidding me!" I mean, it was bubbling up inside me. He was astonished. After I said that he questioned what kind of an example I was setting for the kids, and I said in essence, "yeah, you're really setting an example. You're teaching them that when things don't go their way in life, they should just complain about it. Don't try harder or anything. His team was clearly better, talent-wise; they should've won. Then I told him that if he wanted to fight he could name the time and place. Of course, he was all talk in that way.

 

I definitely regret the way this went. When I reflect on it, I should've made a stand from the get-go. It's another instance of my non-interventionist principles clashing with what needs to be done at the time. I have other stories of me and someone from Syracuse exchanging words. It seems like whenever I meet someone from Syracuse we butt heads. I don't know if it's them or me. I think half on them are just raised to be a$$holes. It could be me; that's a different subject, though.

There's a difference between non-intervention and doing the job you are being paid, through voluntary employment nonetheless, to do. As an umpire you are essentially paid to mediate the game, interpret the rules and make the calls. Both teams coaches voluntarily agreed to play the game under those circumstances and you would be well within your rights, as an umpire and a person, to tell them to lock it up as soon as the first complaints surfaced.

 

The breastfeeding? That's another topic altogether.

No, I know. It's just that I've watched and played for other umpires who tried to be really strict, and there's a fine line you have to walk. I umpire a lot of games. These are just the two confrontations I'd had this summer. The game seems to go a lot smoother if you only make the minimal amount of calls. It fits into my personality to umpire that way too. It's just that sometimes I need to make better decisions.

 

You said the breastfeeding is another topic. What would you do? I know other girls with babies that do similar things, so I'm just wondering.

[Manhattan]

This is arrogant, but my political views stem from my personal belief that I am the best person for any job and nothing should prevent me from reaching my highest potential in anything I do, and I especially don't need lazy and incompetent a$$hole$ piggybacking on my success, so I'm a capitalist. I'm for limited government regulation in the economy and our social affairs. I'll help out my family and my community as I please, but that's as far as "wealth redistribution" goes for me. If the government wants to take my money and redistribute it, then I want to work less hours. That's what the Soviet farmers figured, and they had a famine because nobody wanted to f'ing work when they all got paid the same anyway.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

You said the breastfeeding is another topic. What would you do? I know other girls with babies that do similar things, so I'm just wondering.

They could potentially be violating the rights of a child by forcing them to feed on potentially contaminated milk, but that's not for me to decide. Instead, I'd attempt to let them know that I didn't approve of that type of behavior and if they continued then I would discontinue my relationship with them.