Why is discussion limited to Liberal vs Conservative?

[Noble Steed]

I'm new here, and I'm confused about why political discussion is limited to Liberal vs Conservative, with maybe a little dose of Libertarianism on the side. One only needs to look up political ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology) on wikipedia to see that there are a plethora of other choices out there, most of which are well represented in european democracies.

Indeed, when I signed up, the only choice other than Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian was Canadian. I chose to type in Green, mostly because Third Way Social Democrat wouldn't fit, and also because I didn't want it to be confused with the Democrats, who are more Neo-liberals than Social Democrats.

I guess since this is a mostly US forum, it makes sense that political debate follows the prevalent ideologies in the US, so really I should be asking why discussion in the US is limited to such a narrow ideological range.

For example, when Hillary Clinton suggests petroleum fund, she is branded as a communist. Yet in Norway, where they have one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world, they have been running a petroleum fund since the late 60's. To quote Political compass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index), in any other western democracy, Clinton would be seen as a moderate conservative.

Sorry if this is out of place in these forums, but it seemed like as good a place as any to ask this question, especially considering the implicit support for this narrow range in the pull-down choices when one signs up.

[Pilgrim]

I'm new here, and I'm confused about why political discussion is limited to Liberal vs Conservative, with maybe a little dose of Libertarianism on the side. One only needs to look up political ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology) on wikipedia to see that there are a plethora of other choices out there, most of which are well represented in european democracies.

Indeed, when I signed up, the only choice other than Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian was Canadian. I chose to type in Green, mostly because Third Way Social Democrat wouldn't fit, and also because I didn't want it to be confused with the Democrats, who are more Neo-liberals than Social Democrats.

I guess since this is a mostly US forum, it makes sense that political debate follows the prevalent ideologies in the US, so really I should be asking why discussion in the US is limited to such a narrow ideological range.

For example, when Hillary Clinton suggests petroleum fund, she is branded as a communist. Yet in Norway, where they have one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world, they have been running a petroleum fund since the late 60's. To quote Political compass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org/index), in any other western democracy, Clinton would be seen as a moderate conservative.

Sorry if this is out of place in these forums, but it seemed like as good a place as any to ask this question, especially considering the implicit support for this narrow range in the pull-down choices when one signs up.

Greetings Steed, and welcome.

What a great question you ask. Unfortunately I'm not sure I have a good answer. Perhaps we US Americans like to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator?

Of course you are correct about the myriad other views. I suspect, though, that on a Christian or theologyweb site, particularly an USAmerican one, the conversation will almost always degrade to a conservative vs. liberal one because that seems to be the major line upon which Christians fall.

Not that it makes any differences but I describe myself as independant/progressive.

[rogue06]

The most likely reason thigs get split into Liberal/Conservative here in the U.S. is primarily due to our informal two-party system. If there were more viable parties like there are in Europe then the converations would reflect it. At least that's how I see it.

[NeilUnreal]

My guess is that it has to do with the size of country in population and area. To persuade a majority, messages and platforms have to be reduced to slogans and sound-bites. This has always been the case in this country, but it has been exacerbated by electronic media.

Also, we as a people have always wanted, and believed in, simple answers.

Out of these two, you get the simplest possible adversarial system: two dominant parties that attack each other over everything, regardless of sense or history, in an attempt to get votes. In this scenario, any other messages are virtually guaranteed to either wilt on the vine, or else become absorbed into one of the two dominant parties and so become muted.

-Neil

[Jackie Fox]

I liked the appelation P.J. O'Rourke, who's kind of one himself, gave "Libertarianism": "Pants-Down Republicans"!

[Philosophickle]

I don't think that it is entirely true that the discussion is limited to "conservative vs. liberal." I have been pleasantly surprised with the number of libertarians here at TWeb, and it seems like they are finally starting to come out of the woodwork.

[Sheepdog]

it was only in recent history that conservativism and liberalism have been associated with the Republican and Democrat parties, respectively. a century and a half ago, the Democrats were the ones who opposed abolition of slavery. the Republicans were the "liberals" on that topic.

i think the political spectrum is a sort of baseline, or perhaps an over simplified way of thinking of where people fit.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'v long ago come to the conlusion that any political ieologie is right on a few issues and wrong on most.

[Darth Executor]

I don't think that it is entirely true that the discussion is limited to "conservative vs. liberal." I have been pleasantly surprised with the number of libertarians here at TWeb, and it seems like they are finally starting to come out of the woodwork.

I'm not sure why you're pleasantly surprised, they're usually the most uninformed, paranoid nuts around.

[Philosophickle]

I'm not sure why you're pleasantly surprised, they're usually the most uninformed, paranoid nuts around.

Paranoid? You mean like a "lone wolf"?

[joel]

I'm not sure why you're pleasantly surprised, they're usually the most uninformed, paranoid nuts around.
"Uninformed" may be debatable.
As for "paranoid" we all must maintain constant vigilance and suspicion of government, because government is the monopoly on coercion, and the government's natural tendency is to grow in its size and oppressive nature.

[Philosophickle]

When the govt. runs us into this much debt, I would say that we are certainly warranted in being a little nervous about the folks in charge.

[Darth Executor]

"Uninformed" may be debatable.
As for "paranoid" we all must maintain constant vigilance and suspicion of government, because government is the monopoly on coercion, and the government's natural tendency is to grow in its size and oppressive nature.

I rest my case.

[Darth Executor]

Paranoid? You mean like a "lone wolf"?

What does lone wolf have to do with paranoia? I'm a lone wolf because I don't really care what happens to the rest of the world, not because I think black helicopters are following my every move and everybody's in on it.

[rogue06]

To all the other "most uninformed, paranoid nuts" out there!:ale: :cheers: :ale:

[joel]

What does lone wolf have to do with paranoia? I'm a lone wolf because I don't really care what happens to the rest of the world, not because I think black helicopters are following my every move and everybody's in on it.
:sigh: The libertarians' dislike of government is not paranoia, because it is based on fact and reason. The government is actually taking 25% or more of every one of my paychecks. And then they take even more when I go to exchange it for goods. The government also confiscates a certain percentage of the value of everyone's real property every year, whether it was productive or not, just for good measure. The government is regulating us all to death. All of this is done by the use of violence or the threat of it. And a huge population of the country is, every day, actually demanding that the government wield its violence more and more. etc.

All of this is actually, demontstrably occuring. It is not a vague, baseless suspicion.

[Darth Executor]

:sigh: The libertarians' dislike of government is not paranoia, because it is based on fact and reason. The government is actually taking 25% or more of every one of my paychecks.

Yes, money that goes into maintaining and enhancing the infrastructure of the nation, as well as other necessary services that can't (and shouldn't be privatized). It's not some evil plot to leave you begging for change on some sidewalk.

[Philosophickle]

Yes, money that goes into maintaining and enhancing the infrastructure of the nation, as well as other necessary services that can't (and shouldn't be privatized). It's not some evil plot to leave you begging for change on some sidewalk.

You think our tax money is going into maintaining and enhancing the nation?!? Is that why we are giving billions of dollars to other countries? And why can't education be privatized?

No, I'm pretty sure that a heroine-starved addict would make better decisions with our money than the US government.

[Darth Executor]

You think our tax money is going into maintaining and enhancing the nation?!?

Some of it is.

Is that why we are giving billions of dollars to other countries?

No, you're giving billions of dollars to other countries to make yourselves look good to them, which brings its own benefits.

And why can't education be privatized?

Not an "or" question. You can send your kids to private school if you want.

No, I'm pretty sure that a heroine-starved addict would make better decisions with our money than the US government.

Then donate your money to charity and get it back in tax returns. Start your own non-profit organization and improve on the things you think the US government isn't doing. I've been told this is the "Libertarian way:.

[Philosophickle]

Some of it is.

And a lot of it is not. That is why change is needed.

No, you're giving billions of dollars to other countries to make yourselves look good to them, which brings its own benefits.

What? You think the Iraq war makes us look good to other countries?!?

Not an "or" question. You can send your kids to private school if you want.

Yeah, if you have enough money to pay for both a public school education AND a private school education, otherwise you're stuck.

Then donate your money to charity and get it back in tax returns. Start your own non-profit organization and improve on the things you think the US government isn't doing.

I should get to do that in the first place. Why can't I make my own decisions with my money? What makes some people thousands of miles away feel so privileged as to make my decisions for me?

[Darth Executor]

And a lot of it is not. That is why change is needed.

Yeah, not libertarian change though.

What? You think the Iraq war makes us look good to other countries?!?Iraq is a special case. There's more to it than just "giving money". Nice bait and switch though, Trout (yes, I went there).


Yeah, if you have enough money to pay for both a public school education AND a private school education, otherwise you're stuck.Gather other like-minded libertarians, start a non-profit school system and get it back on tax return. Meanwhile I like the government giving everybody free education, and so do you, because if kids don't go to school in an effort to become productive members of society they end up breaking into my car and stealing my Naruto OST collection, which in turn leads to me breaking into your house and taking a jackhammer to your face.


I should get to do that in the first place. Why can't I make my own decisions with my money? What makes some people thousands of miles away feel so privileged as to make my decisions for me?You wouldn't have a fraction of what you have if it weren't for the society we live in. You are expected to put a portion of your income towards maintaining that. If you'd prefer to live into a stone age society there are quite a few nations where you can do that. I recommend Somalia.

[Philosophickle]

Yeah, not libertarian change though.

The what kind?

Iraq is a special case. There's more to it than just "giving money". Nice bait and switch though, Trout (yes, I went there).

Yeah, there is more to it than giving money. There is also the whole forcing democracy on an apathetic people. And building them a country. Doesn't work, and won't work, and the govt. has no business sending our resources overseas.

Meanwhile I like the government giving everybody free education, and so do you

Dude, what is free about public school education?

[Darth Executor]

The what kind?

I assume you mean "then what kind". And my answer is "the Imperialist kind", of course.


Yeah, there is more to it than giving money. There is also the whole forcing democracy on an apathetic people. And building them a country. Doesn't work, and won't work, and the govt. has no business sending our resources overseas.Yes you do because:

A) You wrecked it.
B) Actually A is good enough.

Dude, what is free about public school education?You paid to go to high school? :hrm:

[joel]

Yes, money that goes into maintaining and enhancing the infrastructure of the nation, as well as other necessary services that can't (and shouldn't be privatized). It's not some evil plot to leave you begging for change on some sidewalk.
It is an evil plot, but not a secret one. It is done openly. And those who advocate it think they have the moral high ground, which makes it all the more isidious. It is unjust, and therefore evil.
Yes, some of that money goes into protecting individual rights (which is what is necessary to maintain the "infrastructure"), but not the majority of it.
For starters, in the U.S., over 50% of it goes into social security and medicare. Another 15% or so goes to pay interest on the national debt. And there's a bunch of additional unjust spending beyond that.


No, you're giving billions of dollars to other countries to make yourselves look good to them, which brings its own benefits.
Yes, let's steal billions of dollars from our fellow countrymen and give it to other countries. That will impress them. :ahem: Countries don't need handouts, they need freedom. History has shown that such handounts actually slow economic development, rather than improve it.


Not an "or" question. You can send your kids to private school if you want.I am not allowed not to fund state-controlled education.
If participation in government programs (e.g., state education and social security) were actually optional and voluntary, then I would not have a problem with them.


Then donate your money to charity and get it back in tax returns.It doesn't work that way. Suppose, without taxes, I wanted to give $1000 to a charity. But instead the government intends to confiscate that $1000. I am now less able to give.

Now, suppose, with taxes, I still give $1000 to the charity, and deduct it on my income tax. That means that that $1000 is not taxed, which reduces my tax burden by $250 (assuming 25% tax). So the government still takes $750 of the original $1000 they would have taken otherwise.

So...
1) Without taxes, after donating, I am down $1000, all of it going to charity.
2) With taxes and "getting back in tax returns", I am down $1750, the charity receiving $1000 , and the government receiving $750.

In general, though, people are less like to give as much with taxes. Suppose, for example that it reduces the incentive-(and ability)-of-the-person-to-give down to, say, $400. The net result is:
3) The person is down $1300, the charity receiving $400, and the government receiving $900.

Comparing (1), (2), and (3), we can see that this is bad for charitable giving.

[Philosophickle]

I assume you mean "then what kind". And my answer is "the Imperialist kind", of course.

So whoever has the biggest muscles gets to make the rules? Might be true, but it isn't right.

Yes you do because:

A) You wrecked it.
B) Actually A is good enough.

I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. But even then, if we go in to take out a significant danger, we are not responsible for making sure the people can recover.

You paid to go to high school? :hrm:

Yep. Every student in my district costs the taxpayers about 9k a year.

[Darth Executor]

So whoever has the biggest muscles gets to make the rules? Might be true, but it isn't right.

As opposed to who?

I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. But even then, if we go in to take out a significant danger, we are not responsible for making sure the people can recover.

Yes you are.

Yep. Every student in my district costs the taxpayers about 9k a year.

Going to school doesn't cost the one going to it anything, making it free. If you want to get technical, reading your posts cost me money because I could be spending that time flipping burgers at McDonald's.

[Darth Executor]

It is an evil plot, but not a secret one. It is done openly. And those who advocate it think they have the moral high ground, which makes it all the more isidious. It is unjust, and therefore evil.
Yes, some of that money goes into protecting individual rights (which is what is necessary to maintain the "infrastructure"), but not the majority of it.

What if I couldn't care less about your or anyone else's individual rights and don't want to pay to protect them?

As a side note, it seems like Americans get the shaft when it comes to donation tax returns. Up here in Canada we can claim up to 75% of our income.

[Philosophickle]

As opposed to who?

Opposed to who or opposed to what? The biggest muscles should not force the littler ones to act in a way that is contrary to their wishes, as long as their non-action does not infringe on the rights of others. Apparently you think that someone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they have all the rifles?

Yes you are.

Why?

Going to school doesn't cost the one going to it anything, making it free.

No, it costs something. It may be free for me, the students, just because I don't pay them at the door. But it costs my parents a buttload for an education I never used or wanted. My parents had to pay extra to send me to a private school.

If you want to get technical, reading your posts cost me money because I could be spending that time flipping burgers at McDonald's.

That is your choice. At least you are able to get that money, whereas my parents go to prison for evading taxes if they don't pay.

[Baraka]

Opposed to who or opposed to what? The biggest muscles should not force the littler ones to act in a way that is contrary to their wishes, as long as their non-action does not infringe on the rights of others. Apparently you think that someone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they have all the rifles?

Hello. So how did this rule that "the biggest muscle should not force the littler ones to act in a way that is contrary to their wishes, etc." come about? Why is this rule "right"?


Why?

Because you wrecked it. :duh: Weren't you whining that the bigger muscle shouldn't bla bla bla. Apparently it's OK to be moral as long as you don't have to pay taxes for it. :ahem:



No, it costs something. It may be free for me, the students,

Why did you say "no"? I didn't say it doesn't cost anybody anything.

just because I don't pay them at the door. But it costs my parents a buttload for an education I never used or wanted. My parents had to pay extra to send me to a private school.

I already explained to you why public education is beneficial. Unless you're looking forward to my face remodeling skills.

That is your choice. At least you are able to get that money, whereas my parents go to prison for evading taxes if they don't pay.

That is your parents' choice. They could move somewhere where they don't pay taxes. They don't even have to leave the US. I believe Puerto Rico is exempt from federal taxes. As long as you live in someone else's community you have to abide by their rules and help pay for its government. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[Darth Executor]

Pickle, if you see a post by "Baraka" it's me, I accidentally posted with my "view tweb from school" account instead of this one.

[joel]

if kids don't go to school in an effort to become productive members of society they end up breaking into my car and stealing my Naruto OST collection, which in turn leads to me breaking into your house and taking a jackhammer to your face.
Ha ha. And you say that we are paranoid!
I think a libertarian argument might be made for forcing parents to provide education to their children, the same way we force parents to provide proper food to their children. That does not mean, however, that parents can force other people to support their children.


You wouldn't have a fraction of what you have if it weren't for the society we live in.Yes, because of individuals being productive. Not because of people initiating force against one another.


You are expected to put a portion of your income towards maintaining that.Agreed, insofar as we are talking about everyone pitching in to protect individual rights.


...there are quite a few nations where you can do that. I recommend Somalia.The poorness of nations is proportional to their lack of economic freedom. The Somalian people do not have anything close to the economic freedom you suggest. Speaking of Somalia, that is a great example of when we tried to give charitably to another country--we got nothing in return but looted and killed. (Refer to the movie Black Hawk Down.)


As opposed to who?

No one should be allowed to enslave (i.e., initiate force against) anyone else.



if we go in to take out a significant danger, we are not responsible for making sure the people can recover.
Yes you are.
No, if you are defending yourself against an aggressor, the aggressor (not you) is responsible for the damage you inflict on him due to your defensive action.


Going to school doesn't cost the one going to it anything, making it free.But if it is done in such a way that it reduces the wealth of the nation, then it costs the one going to school, as well as everyone else. (example: if the 9k per year for 13 years would have otherwise gone to produce, say, $200,000 additional wealth in the nation over the same period, then that additional wealth, plus the 9k per year is cost to everyone, per student, and affects the student himself.)


What if I couldn't care less about your or anyone else's individual rights and don't want to pay to protect them?You're saying you care nothing about justice? What is the point of government if not justice?
Before I can answer your question fully, answer these questions:
1) Are you saying that you would violate the rights of others and do not wish to be prevented or punished by others?
2) Are you saying that you would not defend your own rights?
2.a) What do you do if someone more powerful than you violates your rights?
3) Are you saying that you would be okay with other people enacting vigilante justice (mob rule), with a good chance of some of it being directed at you?


As a side note, it seems like Americans get the shaft when it comes to donation tax returns. Up here in Canada we can claim up to 75% of our income.What do you mean? What I said before had nothing to do with only being able to deduct up to a certain amount.

[historic salve]

There are lots of reasons why there are only two main parties in the US, or at least there have been for about the last 150 years.

1. The sheer costs of running a campaign put many people out of the running.
2. Most Americans are moderate. Although the parties get a little more hardline when they appeal to their bases during primaries (when they're fighting members within their own party) when the general election runs around, they want to take less extreme positions so they can attract undecided voters. If you don't think it's political suicide to take extreme positions (like pulling out of the UN, pulling out of Iraq, pulling out of the WTO - all on one ticket!) then I don't know what to say.
3. We tend not to question the fundamental laws of the nation. Yes, we frequently see controversial Court cases that have a lot to do with our interpretation of the Constitution. But you'll see very, very little or no support for the idea that we should scrap the Constitution itself. In some other countries, it's possible to change their Constitution. The founders thought that's populist and potentially dangerous (don't think so? Imagine a Patriot Amendment to the Constitution after 9/11).
4. Federalism makes it difficult for smaller parties to win at all the levels of government they need to win to make change. Additionally, we don't have a proportionally representative Congress like Canada, so Congress isn't required to represent the population's political leanings.

[Darth Executor]

Ha ha. And you say that we are paranoid!

And humorless, apparently.

I think a libertarian argument might be made for forcing parents to provide education to their children, the same way we force parents to provide proper food to their children. That does not mean, however, that parents can force other people to support their children.Strange how the entire developed world managed to survive and prosper on public education just fine.

Yes, because of individuals being productive. Not because of people initiating force against one another.Like slavery?

Agreed, insofar as we are talking about everyone pitching in to protect individual rights.We're not. I said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care about individual rights. Hitler didn't either and Germany's economy did just fine.

The poorness of nations is proportional to their lack of economic freedom. The Somalian people do not have anything close to the economic freedom you suggest. Speaking of Somalia, that is a great example of when we tried to give charitably to another country--we got nothing in return but looted and killed. (Refer to the movie Black Hawk Down.)No, the poorness of nations is proportional to their competene and ruthlessness. Europe is full of prosperous borderline socialist states.

No one should be allowed to enslave (i.e., initiate force against) anyone else.That doesn't answer my question. Who makes these rules, and what gives this person the right to claim these rules are "the right thing to do"? Oh yeah, power. You have power, you make rules. You don't have power, you can whine all you want about your rights, they won't matter one bit if those with power don't want them to matter.

No, if you are defending yourself against an aggressor, the aggressor (not you) is responsible for the damage you inflict on him due to your defensive action.It's not Saddam's palace that needs rebuilding.

But if it is done in such a way that it reduces the wealth of the nation, then it costs the one going to school, as well as everyone else. (example: if the 9k per year for 13 years would have otherwise gone to produce, say, $200,000 additional wealth in the nation over the same period, then that additional wealth, plus the 9k per year is cost to everyone, per student, and affects the student himself.)And if the student ends up a criminal (which they will, people have to survive and desperation will lead to crime) or a junke it's gonna cost charities and victims of their crimes a lot more than 200.000. School provides everybody an opportunity to make a decent living. A HS diploma is all you need to get a decent paying job. Nothing to write home about but you can live with it.

You're saying you care nothing about justice? What is the point of government if not justice?No, I'm saying I don't care about individual rights. Justice has nothing to do with individual rights (especially a lot of the stupid ones that libertarians like to thump, like surveillance).

Before I can answer your question fully, answer these questions:
1) Are you saying that you would violate the rights of others and do not wish to be prevented or punished by others?I don't believe in rights. But even if I did, if I was violating them it would stand to reason that I do not wish to be prevented or punished by others, especially with my own tax dollars.

2) Are you saying that you would not defend your own rights? I would. I would not defend YOUR rights though. Just like you don't wanna fork out for someone else's kid to go to school I don't wanna fork out for your defense fees when the gestapo picks you up and tosses you in a dungeon. Sounds heartless? I sure hope so, because that's exactly how libertarians sound to me when they don't want to pay for the education of poor children so that they don't grow up to be useless scum. If you're gonna be a selfish jackass, do it all the way, don't ask me to fork out cash to protect your stupid civil liberties then whine when I ask you to fork out cash to help out innocent children.

2.a) What do you do if someone more powerful than you violates your rights?I don't believe in you and this question is moot anyway because there's nobody on this planet that's more powerful than I am, and if there was I'd make sure to get even more power than them so I can teach them how the stripping of rights is really done.

3) Are you saying that you would be okay with other people enacting vigilante justice (mob rule), with a good chance of some of it being directed at you?Depends on the reason why vigilante justice being enacted.

What do you mean? What I said before had nothing to do with only being able to deduct up to a certain amount.
Maybe I should just give an example:

In the US, you donate 100 bucks, get 20 back on tax return if you pay 20% income tax.
In Canada, you donate 100 bucks, get 100 back (sometimes less, our system is confusing, but we defnitely get back a hell of a lot more than you do) as long as (your income *0.75) > 100 (and such situations are extremely rare, you'd have to have a huge donation backlong to be in a position to demand that much). In other words, you guys get screwed.

[Darth Executor]

3. We tend not to question the fundamental laws of the nation. Yes, we frequently see controversial Court cases that have a lot to do with our interpretation of the Constitution. But you'll see very, very little or no support for the idea that we should scrap the Constitution itself. In some other countries, it's possible to change their Constitution. The founders thought that's populist and potentially dangerous (don't think so? Imagine a Patriot Amendment to the Constitution after 9/11).

Power is the only thing preventing the scrapping of the Constitution. If the majority of the US wanted to scrap it and were willing to fight for it, do you think it would matter what the founders thought or did?

Another issue, it is possible to legally change the US constitution (not an expert though so I'm not sure of the extent). Prohibition was an amendment, and then the amendment was scrapped. Heck, amendments themselves change the constitution.

[historic salve]

Power is the only thing preventing the scrapping of the Constitution. If the majority of the US wanted to scrap it and were willing to fight for it, do you think it would matter what the founders thought or did?
What do you mean "fight for it"? It's theoretically possible in our system for Americans to scrap the Constitution, but even Amendments are difficult to pass. My point was that there's no support for scraping the Constitution.

Another issue, it is possible to legally change the US constitution (not an expert though so I'm not sure of the extent). Prohibition was an amendment, and then the amendment was scrapped. Heck, amendments themselves change the constitution.
It's possible to Amend it, sure. But no one wants to get rid of the whole thing and start from scratch, which is a much more radical and dangerous step.

Amendments don't necessarily change the Constitution, though. They may clarify something, or say something that just wasn't said, or resolve a Constitutional contradiction (the 15th Amendment).

[joel]

In some other countries, it's possible to change their Constitution. The founders thought that's populist and potentially dangerous (don't think so? Imagine a Patriot Amendment to the Constitution after 9/11).
In the U.S. it is possible to change the constitution.
As for the founders, Thomas Jefferson thought we should have a revolution every so many years.


Additionally, we don't have a proportionally representative Congress like Canada, so Congress isn't required to represent the population's political leanings.
The House of Representatives is proportionally representative.

[historic salve]

In the U.S. it is possible to change the constitution.
Right, I meant no one wants to scrap it. I said that right before the part you quoted.

As for the founders, Thomas Jefferson thought we should have a revolution every so many years.
Jefferson isn't "the founders."

The House of Representatives is proportionally representative.
Not by the party affiliation, ethnicity, etc. of its members.

[Philosophickle]

Darth, I still don't get why you care about the unborn. I mean, they don't have any individual rights, so why are you opposed to abortion?

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. But even then, if we go in to take out a significant danger, we are not responsible for making sure the people can recover..

The problem is that by going in we've created a much bigger threat than Sadam. Without any real government or military it creted a safe haven for Al Quada and other terrorists.

imo we should have never gone into Iraq, but I dont know if we can afford to leave now that we already have.

[Philosophickle]

The problem is that by going in we've created a much bigger threat than Sadam. Without any real government or military it creted a safe haven for Al Quada and other terrorists.

imo we should have never gone into Iraq, but I dont know if we can afford to leave now that we already have.

What do you mean by afford to leave? It is costing us BILLIONS to stay there. And, while we are busy protecting the people of Iraq and while we are trying to spread the riches of democracy, we are allowing an invasion of our own country by millions of illegals. Pull the troops out of Iraq and put up machine gun pill-boxes on our borders.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Another issue, it is possible to legally change the US constitution (not an expert though so I'm not sure of the extent). Prohibition was an amendment, and then the amendment was scrapped. Heck, amendments themselves change the constitution.

Yes, but the process of ammending the constitution is incredibly complex and can take, quite literally, years to before one is approved.

[joel]

Like slavery?
I agree that slavery should be stopped and punished. It is neither a just nor productive way to benefit oneself.


We're not. I said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care about individual rights. Hitler didn't either and Germany's economy did just fine.No, it didn't.


No, the poorness of nations is proportional to their competene and ruthlessness.That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean inversely proportional? If so, then yes, competence, but only if those people have the freedom to exercise it.


That doesn't answer my question. Who makes these rules, and what gives this person the right to claim these rules are "the right thing to do"?No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government.


Oh yeah, power. You have power, you make rules. You don't have power, you can whine all you want about your rights, they won't matter one bit if those with power don't want them to matter.Exactly. That is why we must protect our ability to protect ourselves.


It's not Saddam's palace that needs rebuilding.If an aggressor uses innocent people as human shields, then the aggressor is responsible for those people.


And if the student ends up a criminal (which they will, people have to survive and desperation will lead to crime) or a junke it's gonna cost charities and victims of their crimes a lot more than 200.000.Then the criminal is to blame. And should be made to pay for his crimes.


No, I'm saying I don't care about individual rights. Justice has nothing to do with individual rightsJustice has everything to do with individual rights. As Plato said, and history has agreed, justice is "to render to each their due." That's what we mean by "protect individual rights." That's what justice is.


(especially a lot of the stupid ones that libertarians like to thump, like surveillance).?? I have no idea what you are talking about.


I don't believe in rights.Then you don't believe in justice. If no one has a right to anything (no one has anything that is their due), then there is no such thing as justice.


Sounds heartless? I sure hope so, because that's exactly how libertarians sound to me when they don't want to pay for the education of poor children so that they don't grow up to be useless scum.Libertarians do not want not to pay for the education of poor children; they want not to coerce their neighbor to pay for the education of poor children, or for anyone to initiate force against anyone else.


I don't believe in you and this question is moot anyway because there's nobody on this planet that's more powerful than I am, and if there was I'd make sure to get even more power than them so I can teach them how the stripping of rights is really done.You don't believe in me? What is that supposed to mean? And the rest of your response is absurd.


Depends on the reason why vigilante justice being enacted.I mean unhindered mob rule. Would you be okay with that?

The main problem with your "selfish" approach (i.e., you, individually, becoming all powerful and looting off others) is that it is neither practical, nor in your best interest to do so. Because it is neither in your own interest to do so, nor in the interest of others, it is therefore irrational.
You, yourself pointed out earlier how we are all benefited by society (each other working together). If you destroy that, then you destroy not only them, but yourself as well.


Maybe I should just give an example:

In the US, you donate 100 bucks, get 20 back on tax return if you pay 20% income tax.
In Canada, you donate 100 bucks, get 100 back (sometimes less, our system is confusing, but we defnitely get back a hell of a lot more than you do) as long as (your income *0.75) > 100 (and such situations are extremely rare, you'd have to have a huge donation backlong to be in a position to demand that much). In other words, you guys get screwed.Really? That is a better deal. So, suppose your tax rate is 25%, or whatever it is up there in Canada. And suppose you earn $10,000 in income. If you don't give, then you have to pay the government $2,500. If, on the other hand, you give $2,500 to charity then you pay nothing at all to the government. Do I understand you correctly? Effectively, what that would mean is that the government coerces everyone into giving a certain amount to the charity(s) of their choice. And only if anyone gives less than that amount does the government confiscate the difference. That would cerctainly be better. Although I would still have a problem with the coersion.

[joel]

Not by the party affiliation, ethnicity, etc. of its members.
What? Explain further the way you think it should be.

[Darth Executor]

Darth, I still don't get why you care about the unborn. I mean, they don't have any individual rights, so why are you opposed to abortion?

God (the guy with the biggest guns) said murder is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. I have chosen to be on the side of right and thus will uphold and enforce God's laws whenever I can.

[Philosophickle]

God (the guy with the biggest guns) said murder is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. I have chosen to be on the side of right and thus will uphold and enforce God's laws whenever I can.

So in what sense do individuals not have rights? I mean, it seems ridiculous to say that it is wrong to take the life of someone, but they don't have the right to live.

[joel]

God (the guy with the biggest guns) said murder is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. I have chosen to be on the side of right and thus will uphold and enforce God's laws whenever I can.
I thought you said you were the guy with the biggest guns.

[Philosophickle]

I thought you said you were the guy with the biggest guns.

A canuck will never be able to make that claim.

[joel]

I mean, it seems ridiculous to say that it is wrong to take the life of someone, but they don't have the right to live.
Exactly. If you have the obligation to not take someone's life, then that is owed to them, and they have the right to hold you to that obligation--thus the right to life.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

What do you mean by afford to leave? It is costing us BILLIONS to stay there.

What I mean is that, with Iraq destablized, its become a perfect place for terrorist groups to hide and organize. In some parts they took over for the local governments. If we leave whats to stop them from taking over teh whole country?(especially since most Iraqi civilians are sympathetic to their cause). The Iraqi government has no real power, and the police and military arent nearly well staffed, equiped or trained to handle teh situation.

And, while we are busy protecting the people of Iraq and while we are trying to spread the riches of democracy, we are allowing an invasion of our own country by millions of illegals. Pull the troops out of Iraq and put up machine gun pill-boxes on our borders.

You know the truth is while illigal immigration is a real problem facing us today, we need to priortize here. Most illigal immigrants are not out to kill us, they just want good jobs and decent living and working conditions. Whereas Al Queda and other similar groups would like nothing more than to eleminate our government and kill everyone who wont convert to their brand of fanatical Islam. Which is a greater threat?

[Darth Executor]

I agree that slavery should be stopped and punished. It is neither a just nor productive way to benefit oneself.

You missed the point. America prospered off slavery. Your assertion that prosperity depends on liberties is wrong.

No, it didn't.

Yes it did. Hitler lifted it out of a depression and powered it up enough to take on any single nation (including the US) one on one and annihilate it. Granted, he was an incompetent strategist, but when it comes to the economy he did great.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean inversely proportional? If so, then yes, competence, but only if those people have the freedom to exercise it.

No, I meant proportional (although we have opposite views of poorness in our minds) hence the confusion. But anyway, in Europe, people don't have nearly the freedom to exercise it like the US or Canada does yet they still prosper. Point being that your assertion that freedom is required for prosperity is wrong (again).

No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government.

Natural rights don't exist. They are a figment of your imagination. Feel free to prove that they exist if you want. You'll fail, just like everyone else I asked this question failed. They're a fabrication of the human mind with no justification as to why they have any power whatsoever.

Exactly.

No, not exactly. Power rule and natural law cannot coexist.

If an aggressor uses innocent people as human shields, then the aggressor is responsible for those people.

The aggressor is dead and Saddam didn't use them as human shields anyway. The US could've simply assassinated him. Instead you decided to invade the whole nation and turn it into a war zone. Now fix it.

Justice has everything to do with individual rights. As Plato said, and history has agreed, justice is "to render to each their due." That's what we mean by "protect individual rights." That's what justice is.

What is due to somebody is decided by the most mighty and the one true God never said anything about individual rights. He gave laws and will kick arse if they are not obeyed. Individual rights are the illogical bastard child of pagan and deist/atheist philosophy.

?? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking about people complaining about Bush's illegal surveillance. (in particular). I don't care if the government listens in on my phone calls and don't want my tax money to be used to prosecute it if it does.

Then you don't believe in justice. If no one has a right to anything (no one has anything that is their due), then there is no such thing as justice.

Because I don't believe in Plato's retarded theories I don't believe in justice? Justice is enforcing and obeying the law of the most mighty. Anything else is meaningless.

Libertarians do not want not to pay for the education of poor children; they want not to coerce their neighbor to pay for the education of poor children, or for anyone to initiate force against anyone else.

Actually I read a study a while ago that showed libertarians were the stingiest of them all (I thought liberals would win). That aside, libertarians don't want to ensure all children get an education, but they want to ensure everybody has protection from violence. I find that hypocritical, because they whine about being taxed for the former but have no problem taxing people against their will for the latter.

You don't believe in me? What is that supposed to mean? And the rest of your response is absurd.

Typo, should be rights, not me.

I mean unhindered mob rule. Would you be okay with that?

No.

The main problem with your "selfish" approach (i.e., you, individually, becoming all powerful and looting off others) is that it is neither practical, nor in your best interest to do so. Because it is neither in your own interest to do so, nor in the interest of others, it is therefore irrational.
You, yourself pointed out earlier how we are all benefited by society (each other working together). If you destroy that, then you destroy not only them, but yourself as well.

Actually I wouldn't loot off others, and others can't loot off me with no consequences because of God.

Really? That is a better deal. So, suppose your tax rate is 25%, or whatever it is up there in Canada. And suppose you earn $10,000 in income. If you don't give, then you have to pay the government $2,500. If, on the other hand, you give $2,500 to charity then you pay nothing at all to the government. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, that's the way it works as far as I can tell (simplified). Our rules are pretty confusing.

Effectively, what that would mean is that the government coerces everyone into giving a certain amount to the charity(s) of their choice. And only if anyone gives less than that amount does the government confiscate the difference. That would cerctainly be better. Although I would still have a problem with the coersion.

Would you have a problem with the government coercing me into paying taxes to protect everybody else's individual rights?

[Philosophickle]

What I mean is that, with Iraq destablized, its become a perfect place for terrorist groups to hide and organize. In some parts they took over for the local governments. If we leave whats to stop them from taking over teh whole country?(especially since most Iraqi civilians are sympathetic to their cause). The Iraqi government has no real power, and the police and military arent nearly well staffed, equiped or trained to handle teh situation.

It won't work. Muslim country's thrive on the inability of the people to have an exchange of ideas, which is the basis of a democratic society. If there is no freedom to hammer out the issues facing the Iraqis, this crap will just keep happening. And if the idea is to force our own ideology on them...well, we know how that turns out. The only workable option would be a permanent occupation of Iraq, which is completely out of the question on nearly every level.

You know the truth is while illigal immigration is a real problem facing us today, we need to priortize here. Most illigal immigrants are not out to kill us, they just want good jobs and decent living and working conditions. Whereas Al Queda and other similar groups would like nothing more than to eleminate our government and kill everyone who wont convert to their brand of fanatical Islam. Which is a greater threat?

Since I do not believe that what we are doing in Iraw is going to work, and I pretty much just want to get the hell out of there before the whole thing explodes in a bloodbath- they are going to kill, so I would rather have them warring with each other than an oppressor- which is taking place even though we are there. And it is not just our jobs, it is our livelihood. When you have such a massive influx of people entering anonymously, it upsets EVERYTHING. All the sudden we are at a disadvantage because we pay our taxes (which ends up paying for the illegals) and they get to suckle our property at will.

[Darth Executor]

So in what sense do individuals not have rights?

In the sense libertarians use them (natural rights, to be more specific).

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

It won't work. Muslim country's thrive on the inability of the people to have an exchange of ideas, which is the basis of a democratic society. If there is no freedom to hammer out the issues facing the Iraqis, this crap will just keep happening. And if the idea is to force our own ideology on them...well, we know how that turns out. The only workable option would be a permanent occupation of Iraq, which is completely out of the question on nearly every level.

Actually there is a feasible solution but I dont think it'll ever happen(certainly not under the current political climate):

Scrap the democratic government in Iraq, and instill a dictator who can gain the trust of Iraqi populice, while at the same time opposing the fanatical elements that would kill us. Then pull our own troops out while assisting him with suplies and training for his own armies and police. That way Iraq will have some stability, the terrorits will be driven back underground, and we can get back to actually hunting them instead of trying to keep the peace in a country we should never have been in in the first place.

As I said I dont think it'll happen, but I think it would be plausible if we could do it somewhat covertly.

[Philosophickle]

In the sense libertarians use them (natural rights, to be more specific).

:shrug:
Seems like we agree with each other. If by rights you mean something that we own in case we meet some criterion- a person has the right to life- then we are in agreement. Who supplies the rights is another question unto itself, and one that is not required to have an answer.

[Philosophickle]

Scrap the democratic government in Iraq, and instill a dictator who can gain the trust of Iraqi populice, while at the same time opposing the fanatical elements that would kill us.

Well, that is your problem. The people over there would not accept a dictator that embraces Western culture, so this dictator would not gain the trust of the Iraqi populace.

[Darth Executor]

:shrug:
Seems like we agree with each other.

To a point, maybe. A good deal of the rights most libertarians believe in (like privacy or freedom of speech) are not granted by the Christian God though, so...

If by rights you mean something that we own in case we meet some criterion- a person has the right to life- then we are in agreement. Who supplies the rights is another question unto itself, and one that is not required to have an answer.

Actually it's not another question, that's why we got into it. Our philosophies are quite different (assuming you share joel's). His laws are immutable. Mine aren't (in theory, in practice nobody can overpower God). Mine have are rooted in law. His just sit there.

[Darth Executor]

Well, that is your problem. The people over there would not accept a dictator that embraces Western culture, so this dictator would not gain the trust of the Iraqi populace.

Who said anything about a dictator that embraces Western culture?

[Philosophickle]

To a point, maybe. A good deal of the rights most libertarians believe in (like privacy or freedom of speech) are not granted by the Christian God though, so...

Well, if you are asking me if I believe that morality is rooted in God's nature, then we agree.

Actually it's not another question, that's why we got into it. Our philosophies are quite different (assuming you share joel's). His laws are immutable. Mine aren't (in theory, in practice nobody can overpower God). Mine have are rooted in law. His just sit there.

I'm not a divine command theorist, if that's what you want to know. And if Joel believes that moral norms are immutable then I do agree with him.

[Philosophickle]

Who said anything about a dictator that embraces Western culture?

I think "not wanting us to die/convert" is pretty much at odds with the Muslim populace.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Well, that is your problem. The people over there would not accept a dictator that embraces Western culture, so this dictator would not gain the trust of the Iraqi populace.

He wouldnt have to embrace western culture. Just oppose Al Queda and other terrorists groups(like Sadam did).

The main problem with my proposal is that it wont happen. But I suppose thats about the best that one can hope for.

[historic salve]

What? Explain further the way you think it should be.
I think it should stay the way it is. I was explaining that whereas some countries - like Iran - use the representative proportional systems, we don't. Iran has to have a certain number of Christians in parliament, for instance.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I think "not wanting us to die/convert" is pretty much at odds with the Muslim populace.

Not necessarly. Sadam, for example, althogh he was a Muslim, he ran a secular government. He hated us for pushing him out of Kuwait and not letting him take over more of the Middle East, not because we dont subscribe to Islam.

In fact he kept Al Queda and other fanitical Muslims out of Iraq because he didnt want a theocracy. It was only after we ousted Sadam that they moved in there.

[Darth Executor]

I think "not wanting us to die/convert" is pretty much at odds with the Muslim populace.

Then you don't really know the Muslim population very well. Most of them don't really want to get you.

[Philosophickle]

Not necessarly. Sadam, for example, althogh he was a Muslim, he ran a secular government. He hated us for pushing him out of Kuwait and not letting him take over more of the Middle East, not because we dont subscribe to Islam.

What, and you don't think people hate us for being in Iraq?!
Look, I am not opposed to war. I think it is necessary to preserve the liberties of deserving people. But I also have no interest in trying to appease the people of the world, or try to drag them up to the standards of western living. It simply isn't feasible. If a change is going to happen in the Middle East it must be the masses that want to change doing it.

[Philosophickle]

Then you don't really know the Muslim population very well. Most of them don't really want to get you.

A sufficiently scary number of them do.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

What, and you don't think people hate us for being in Iraq?!

I think they do. but if we left we'd have a whole country full of people who hate us for destablizing it, combined with fanatical groups that believe we all deserve nothing less than death and eternal damnation and have the military power to take over the country without us there.

This my friend is a recipie for disastor any way you slice it.


Look, I am not opposed to war. I think it is necessary to preserve the liberties of deserving people. But I also have no interest in trying to appease the people of the world, or try to drag them up to the standards of western living. It simply isn't feasible. If a change is going to happen in the Middle East it must be the masses that want to change doing it.

I agree, I dont think trying to force Iraq to become a democracy is going to work. Thats why I think we need to scrap that idea and instil a dictator there, someone who will keep the peace and keep out the fanatics. Sadam did that, but its too late for us to him back.

[historic salve]

Darth, I still don't get why you care about the unborn. I mean, they don't have any individual rights, so why are you opposed to abortion?
:eww: I guess I'd call you out on Ex 21:22-25, but this is the political forum.

[Darth Executor]

:eww: I guess I'd call you out on Ex 21:22-25, but this is the political forum.

He's pro life too actually, he just wanted to know WHY I think it's wrong.

[Darth Executor]

A sufficiently scary number of them do.

I don't think they're willing to put their own well being aside for that. If they did we'd have every muslim nation in the world declare war on us.

[Darth Executor]

Well, if you are asking me if I believe that morality is rooted in God's nature, then we agree.

We don't agree. I think morality is rooted in God's power. I'm not even sure what morality being rooted in God's nature means.


I'm not a divine command theorist, if that's what you want to know.

It would appear that I am, though.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm new here, and I'm confused about why political discussion is limited to Liberal vs Conservative, with maybe a little dose of Libertarianism on the side.Because it is easier to argue against a label than an idea.

[Darth Executor]

Because it is easier to argue against a label than an idea.

How profound. You should get your own Hallmark card.

[joel]

You missed the point. America prospered off slavery. Your assertion that prosperity depends on liberties is wrong.
The slave owners leached off the production of others, which is a net loss in properity compared to not enslaving others.


Yes it did. Hitler lifted it out of a depression and powered it up enough to take on any single nation (including the US) one on one and annihilate it. Granted, he was an incompetent strategist, but when it comes to the economy he did great.Hmm, I think you actually have that backwards.
"Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...[were] the dismal reality behind the `fine facade of the Third Reich.'""
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31084.html


Point being that your assertion that freedom is required for prosperity is wrong (again).That's not what the facts show. See, for example, http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/Hanke_and_Walters.pdf


Natural rights don't exist. They are a figment of your imagination. Feel free to prove that they exist if you want. You'll fail, just like everyone else I asked this question failed. They're a fabrication of the human mind with no justification as to why they have any power whatsoever.That's a strange thing to hear coming from a Christian.
But anyway... Is the use of force ever justified? If your answer is no, then everyone has the obligation to not use force against anyone, and therefore everyone has the right to hold others to that obligation (hold others to what is owed them). If your answer is yes--you provide an example where the use of force is justified--then that is an example of the right to use force. Either way, there is a natural right. You cannot escape it.


the one true God never said anything about individual rights. "Thou shall not murder"
"Thou shall not steal"
etc.

Do you have the obligation to not steal from your neighbor?


Actually I read a study a while ago that showed libertarians were the stingiest of them allEven if that were true, "the acts of all those who call themselves libertarians" does not equal "libertarianism". Besides. Libertarianism says nothing about stinginess or generocity. Libertarianism is only a political philosohy. Everything else is left for non-political morality to decide.


That aside, libertarians don't want to ensure all children get an education, but they want to ensure everybody has protection from violence. I find that hypocritical,Not at all. It is the best way to increase the likelihood that more children get an education.



I mean unhindered mob rule. Would you be okay with that?
No.
Exactly. That is the reason why the use of retaliatory force must be consolidated into the government. That is the proper role of government.


Would you have a problem with the government coercing me into paying taxes to protect everybody else's individual rights?Sure. We can make it voluntary. You don't have to pay for the court system, but then you don't get to use it either. You don't have to pay for the executive branch, but then the law enforcement will not prosecute crimes committed against you. Effectively you can opt out so that from the government's point of view, you would have no rights for it to protect. You would then be free to provide your own non-coercive protection for yourself. There you go.


A good deal of the rights most libertarians believe in (like privacy or freedom of speech) are not granted by the Christian God though, so...Really, are you not obligated to not initiate force against someone to keep them from speaking? I agree with you on "privacy" though. The way it is used so often (mostly by non-libertarians) is il-defined.


Our philosophies are quite different (assuming you share joel's). His laws are immutable. Mine aren't (in theory, in practice nobody can overpower God). Mine have are rooted in law. His just sit there.No, you misunderstand me. Natural rights are based on Natural Law, which comes from God. No man can change Natural Law, so it is immutable, relative to man.

[Philosophickle]

How profound. You should get your own Hallmark card.

Even though I disagree with nearly everything you've said, I can't help but laugh at your quips. You really should become a libertarian.

[Darth Executor]

The slave owners leached off the production of others, which is a net loss in properity compared to not enslaving others.

Net loss for who? Not america, who we were talking about, or any of the other dozens of great nations and empires throughout history who prospered just fine with slave labor.

Hmm, I think you actually have that backwards.
"Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...[were] the dismal reality behind the `fine facade of the Third Reich.'""
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31084.html

I don't have it backwards, the guy you quoted has no idea what he's talking about. Compared to the depression Hitler inherited Germany's economy was excellent. I think I'll trust my history professors over some guy on a nutty web site.

That's not what the facts show.

Yes it is. See the Roman Empire, the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman Empire, NAZI Germany and dozens of other nations who were the top dogs of their time despite the lack of jeffersonian democracy. The garbage that you need freedom to prosper is simply pure propaganda, especially when it comes to economic freedom (again, see Europe).

That's a strange thing to hear coming from a Christian.

No, "No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government" is a strange thing to hear coming from a Christian. God has the right to make any damn rule he wants, and has never made anything called "rights". All he has made are laws that restrict freedom.

But anyway... Is the use of force ever justified? If your answer is no, then everyone has the obligation to not use force against anyone, and therefore everyone has the right to hold others to that obligation (hold others to what is owed them). If your answer is yes--you provide an example where the use of force is justified--then that is an example of the right to use force. Either way, there is a natural right. You cannot escape it.

Just because I'm allowed or supposed to do something doesn't make it a natural right. The definition of naturalrighs that you gave is: "No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government. "
I believe the use of force is justified in certain situations. This could change based on God's whim, which means my belief does not fit your definition. In turn, this means your example does not provide evidence for your "natural rights" (I just call them rights, period, since natural rights is what people usually refer to when they use the word).

"Thou shall not murder"
"Thou shall not steal"
etc.

Those aren't rights by any stretch of imagination. They're commands given by the highest power meant to restrict the freedom of human beings.

Do you have the obligation to not steal from your neighbor?

Depends. In general, yes.

Even if that were true, "the acts of all those who call themselves libertarians" does not equal "libertarianism". Besides. Libertarianism says nothing about stinginess or generocity. Libertarianism is only a political philosohy. Everything else is left for non-political morality to decide.

I don't buy the belief that libertarians want to give (which was the point). Whether libertarianism itself says nothing about generosity is not relevant.

Not at all. It is the best way to increase the likelihood that more children get an education.

Then why is it that the rest of the civilised world and even developing countries can give an education to nearly all children with no problems?

Exactly. That is the reason why the use of retaliatory force must be consolidated into the government. That is the proper role of government.

So mob rule should be consolidated into, erm, mob rule? :hrm:

Sure. We can make it voluntary. You don't have to pay for the court system, but then you don't get to use it either. You don't have to pay for the executive branch, but then the law enforcement will not prosecute crimes committed against you. Effectively you can opt out so that from the government's point of view, you would have no rights for it to protect. You would then be free to provide your own non-coercive protection for yourself. There you go.

Congratulations, you are no longer libertarian, you are an anarchist. :thumb:

Really, are you not obligated to not initiate force against someone to keep them from speaking?

*checks Leviticus 24*

Nope.


No, you misunderstand me. Natural rights are based on Natural Law, which comes from God. No man can change Natural Law, so it is immutable, relative to man.

Oh, so now it's "no man" rather than "nobody". Well, I'm glad I have brought you to my point of view, even if you won't admit it.

[Noble Steed]

Hi, me again. Thanks to everyone for demonstrating how many things you can still find to fight about despite the relative lack of political diversity here. More sincere thanks go to those who gave a sincere answer to my question, I'm especially glad to see that Pilgrim identifies as progressive. Sometimes I worry that people even know the meaning of the word when they let themselves get into the same circular arguments over wedge issues and refuse to move forward as a nation by putting effort into more constructive concerns.

I think historic salve hit it on the head by pointing out that you don't have proportional representation like other places do. Unfortunately, under FPP, the percentage of votes is not equal to the percentage of representation, so minor parties with widespread support across the country tend not to be represented at all if they cannot beat a major party in any one electorate, even though they may have 20% of the country behind them. But that's unlikely to change since FPP is in the constitution, which seems to be treated like gospel, if you'll excuse the analogy. Also, the only people with the power to change it are members of the two-party duopoly that enjoy dominating the political field and are unlikely to have it any other way. Forgive me for thinking this is a very bad thing.

While I'm at it, I'd like to look at a few other points that were made to try to better understand what's going on here.

1. The sheer costs of running a campaign put many people out of the running.

So why not just limit campaign spending to a more sensible amount? Isn't it absurd that you have to have millions to be able to compete with all the others who spend millions? It doesn't seem like a very good way to prevent corruption to me. In other countries it is illegal to buy political television advertising, instead all candidates receive an equal share of air time. No doubt some people will shoot me down as a communist for suggesting that, but labelling me on the far left for suggesting something many western democracies practise would only serve to illustrate my point about narrow political ideologies.

2. Most Americans are moderate. Although the parties get a little more hardline when they appeal to their bases during primaries (when they're fighting members within their own party) when the general election runs around, they want to take less extreme positions so they can attract undecided voters. If you don't think it's political suicide to take extreme positions (like pulling out of the UN, pulling out of Iraq, pulling out of the WTO - all on one ticket!) then I don't know what to say.

This is exactly the problem I'm trying to understand. Why do you consider most Americans to be moderate? Moderate conservatives (http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008) maybe. But not moderate by worldwide standards.

Lastly, to all the libertarian haters out there; they don't want to interfere in your life in any way, what's to hate about that? Sure, sometimes they can be a bit misguided about things like education. But like someone else said, every ideology has its flaws. That's why diversity is a good thing.

[joel]

Net loss for who? Not america, who we were talking about, or any of the other dozens of great nations and empires throughout history who prospered just fine with slave labor.
Net loss for the individuals directly involved. If I were to enslave you, the benefit (if any) to me would be less than the cost to you, so there is a net loss, not to mention the loss due to opportunity cost and the cost to my own character and soul. Besides, the cost/benefit discussion is secondary. The real issue is one of justice.


No, "No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government" is a strange thing to hear coming from a Christian. God has the right to make any damn rule he wants, and has never made anything called "rights". All he has made are laws that restrict freedom.
Again, here I was referring to humans. Surely you agree with my statement in that contex?--that no human has the right to make arbitrary rules, and that Natural Law is pre-legal. Surely if Natural rights were to exist in Natural Law, you would agree that they would be unalienable and exist regardless of any government of men.
As far as saying, He "has never made anything called 'rights'," it doesn't really matter what we call it, if that term bothers you. We could use the other side of the coin and talk about "obligations" and still be talking about the same thing. Surely you agree that God has created universal obligations between humans. Obligations and rights go hand in hand, one person's right is another person's obligation. So, instead of talking about "Natural rights" we could be talking about "natural obligations," and we'd arrive at the same destination.


Just because I'm allowed or supposed to do something doesn't make it a natural right. The definition of naturalrighs that you gave is: "No one has the right to make arbitrary rules. Natural rights are pre-legal. They are unalienable and exist whether or not there is any government. "
I believe the use of force is justified in certain situations. This could change based on God's whim, which means my belief does not fit your definition. In turn, this means your example does not provide evidence for your "natural rights" (I just call them rights, period, since natural rights is what people usually refer to when they use the word).
That's not how I define rights, that was just some facts about rights. I agree with you that the use of force is justified in certain situations. I never denied that. What I said was that the initiation of force against another human is always unjust. For example, for you to kill your neighbor who is living peacefully, not committing injustices against anyone else, is unjust. On the other hand, your neighbor would be just in using necessary force to defend himself and his family against your attack. Force is justified in defense and in retaliation via due process of the law and equal justice.
"Natural rights" does not cover all of rights. For example, you and I could enter into a mutually concentual contract in which we have obligations to each other. This creates rights that are not natural rights. Another example: if you commit and injustice, then you have an obligation to pay, which corresponds to a right that is not a natural right.
Anyway, none of what you say here does anything to refute my proof of the existence of rights (which is what you were responding to).



"Thou shall not murder"
"Thou shall not steal"
etc.
Those aren't rights by any stretch of imagination. They're commands given by the highest power meant to restrict the freedom of human beings.

Do you have the obligation to not steal from your neighbor?
Depends. In general, yes.
So you acknowledge that, in general, humans have obligations to each other, by the sovereign decree of God. And you stated before that humans are to enforce the law of God. That is what I am talking about--enforcing God-given obligations (i.e., to not steal, not kill, etc.--that is, not to initiate force against another human.)


I don't buy the belief that libertarians want to give (which was the point). Whether libertarianism itself says nothing about generosity is not relevant.
Whether libertarians want to give is irrelevant. What is it to you, the amount of others' charitable giving?


Then why is it that the rest of the civilised world and even developing countries can give an education to nearly all children with no problems?I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is.


So mob rule should be consolidated into, erm, mob rule? :hrm:No--it should be consolidated into due process of the law and equal justice.


Congratulations, you are no longer libertarian, you are an anarchist. :thumb:Nope. Because even if you, personally, opt out of protection of rights, the government would still crack down on you if you violate the rights of others. And it will still crack down on vigilante justice--i.e., the government would not protect your right to retribution.


*checks Leviticus 24*

Nope.That would fall under the category of a permissible retaliatory force executed against one who committed an injustice. And the said retaliatory force was specially ordained for the Hebrew nation for the injustice of blaspheming the Name. The so-called "right to free speech" is not a license to say anything. It refers the freedom to express ideas, without violating another person (e.g., slander and fraud are unjust, and not protected rights).

[Jimmy Higgins]

How profound. You should get your own Hallmark card.It's truth regardless. Why does AM Radio get higher listenership than NPR (you know, I'm assuming that is true, it may not be, but it probably is) even when the content to advertisement ratio is much much greater on NPR (about 48 to 50 minutes an hour compared to 30ish minutes on AM)? Because AM Radio gives people easy to digest, preprocessed garbage that attacks "liberals". . Meanwhile NPR is complicated. Typically NPR conservative guests on Rheme and Talk of the Nation do a much better job at discussing and promoting the conservative argument than Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved or Beck could ever dream of.

But people love to attack the label instead of learning a thing or two.