LGP Political Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

Everyone is born free. You might be dependent upon your caregivers initially, but you're free to do as you please after that fact.

How? Doesn't this really depend on where you are born, when you were born, what sex you are? Ideally, a slave is free to do anything he/she wants, but in reality if they disobey their master they might get killed.
I would say that you can't truly be free until the age of about 4 or 5 or so. After that, if you felt it was in your best interest, you could live in the woods and survive with few problems. Of course no one wants to do that, but I think that it is entirely possible.
What? I think you might die. What kind of freedom is it for a 4 year old to live in the woods? :scared:
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

bh wrote:
Guinness wrote:And that's really the point - our freedoms are inherent and do not come to us because of the existence of government.
How are we inherently free? Sometimes I feel I don't really understand what this means. I know that only I am in control of my own mind and that I can move in any way that I wish as long as I am not restrained. What other freedoms are there? None of us can be independent all our lives even if we wished to do so. We are all born as dependents relying on some caregiver to nurture us into adulthood. What types/kinds of freedoms does inherently free refer to?
I try and look at freedom in terms of the existential way instead of in a politic,economic, level. What existence means to humans now and in the past. Existentialism/ Absurdism explain freedom in the best way IMO. I like what Camus and Kierkegaard say on the topic.
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
Posts: 4610
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:48 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by bh »

Guinness wrote:
bh wrote:How are we inherently free? Sometimes I feel I don't really understand what this means. I know that only I am in control of my own mind and that I can move in any way that I wish as long as I am not restrained. What other freedoms are there? None of us can be independent all our lives even if we wished to do so. We are all born as dependents relying on some caregiver to nurture us into adulthood. What types/kinds of freedoms does inherently free refer to?
There's no question that we are born dependent upon other people, and that at various times throughout our lives we are again dependent. But we have no right to use force or to outsource force to a third party (government) to *demand* that other people attend to us. We may appeal to others. Others may offer their assistance to us. But each individual may not declare a claim on other individuals. How are we inherently free? If you are not, then you are a slave. Do you get permission from another person to draw a breath? Does anyone seek your permission? Your thoughts are your own, and you are free to speak them. They may surely be the product of some combination of your own mind and of your interaction with society, but "society" has no right to make a claim upon them - there is no physical way it can. You do not seek permission for your thoughts - most of us can't even control them ourselves! ;)
So, as I thought, we are only inherently free in the context of our own selves? So from that wouldn't being a slave be impossible if you refuse to be one? How can someone force you to be a slave if you don't want to be one? You then seem to extend this self freedom to society at large, and while I agree that people should live in a free social system, I just fail to see how that it is inherent? I value freedom greatly, but I see that it is only my opinion, I'm looking for I guess deeper reasons to justify freedom philosophically.
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
Posts: 4610
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:48 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by bh »

Guinness wrote:"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences."
[youtube][/youtube]
Just watched this. I like. :D
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

doublem wrote: Okay, I have been debating the morality of the positions you take. The same theory applies. What actions would be cased for example if no one payed for schools or hospitals? It works both ways. It would be the same cost.
Schools and roads would get built if government didn't intervene, yes. Do you really think that people would just wallow around in mud and misery if government wasn't there to save them?

[/quote]Since I gave all that evidence stuff. Economic freedom is narrowing for what it means to be a person. "Freedom is the fundamental character of the will, as weight is of matter... That which is free is the will. Will without freedom is an empty word."No, I'm not a moral relativist. I don't know how you could think that. Theft is theft, taxation is not theft. I don't know when I ever said murder is acceptable.People are complex. I think that is what I always try and post. I can't debate morals with you becasue every-time I give you empirical evidence of the plus sides of taxation you start talking about the theory/morality of it, and the downside of the plus. Surely, the same would be true in a free market system, but I'm sure you would say that is morally just.[/quote]

I think at this point we're just caught in a semantics circle. I've said time and again that I don't care if it does work, even though it doesn't -- that was the point of the broken window fallacy that you keep ignoring - you're giving evidence of what is "seen". What isn't taken into account is what isn't "seen".

Economic freedom is not some subset of freedom. I'm not even sure how to divine what it is you're saying sometimes... no offense.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

Do you really think that people would just wallow around in mud and misery if government wasn't there to save them?
Depends. I think generally people are selfish, so I think some areas would be awful and would look like third world countries, and the areas with the people with tons of cash would build a few roads or schools for them, and they might not even do that. It would probably look like some 18th century monarch with peasants doing all the work. I don't have this great faith in the human spirit to do things just because, and I think the people that did have the great amount of wealth would most likely enslave the rest of us. This isn't becasue of government this is becasue humans are selfish. So, yea I guess we would sit around in misery and mud since we have done it a lot in history. If things got bad enough enough for some group of people I think they might try to fix it.
Economic freedom is not some subset of freedom. I'm not even sure how to divine what it is you're saying sometimes... no offense
I only find it to be one type of freedom, not the only type or a must, like the market fundamentalist always try and tell us.
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

bh wrote:So, as I thought, we are only inherently free in the context of our own selves? So from that wouldn't being a slave be impossible if you refuse to be one? How can someone force you to be a slave if you don't want to be one? You then seem to extend this self freedom to society at large, and while I agree that people should live in a free social system, I just fail to see how that it is inherent? I value freedom greatly, but I see that it is only my opinion, I'm looking for I guess deeper reasons to justify freedom philosophically.
I'm not sure I understand. I think it is correct to say that no one can force you to be a slave, so long as you value freedom over life. Practically, we make judgment calls about things like this all the time. I view income taxation as unconstitutional and immoral - so much so that I consider it a form of slavery, for reasons I've expressed on a number of occasions here. However, I continue to pay my income taxes. And the reason I do is because I feel I have an obligation to my family to not be in prison, etc. I don't pay them out of some sense of obligation to the "greater good", even though I do feel as though I need to contribute to the greater good - income taxation diminishes my ability to do that. But I have no say in how my labor is translated into charity. My labor goes to fund two immoral and illegal wars... (I'm getting off track here) it's worse than that - I am funding the killing of other human beings. Government has put me in a position where I must choose between my morals and providing for my family. You know, that's not an exaggeration - the Federal government, for all intents and purposes, has a gun to my head, and asks me to choose. That's only the tip of the iceberg, really.

Anyway, I'm wandering around here a bit and I don't have a lot of time to discuss it further right now.
Last edited by Guinness on Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

doublem wrote:I don't have this great faith in the human spirit
You do realize that government is made up of humans, right?
I only find it to be one type of freedom, not the only type or a must, like the market fundamentalist always try and tell us.
I really don't understand this notion of multiple types of freedom... either you're free or you're not.
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

bh wrote:
Guinness wrote:"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences."
[youtube][/youtube]
Just watched this. I like. :D
It's good stuff, isn't it? :)
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

Guinness wrote:
doublem wrote:I don't have this great faith in the human spirit
You do realize that government is made up of humans, right?
I only find it to be one type of freedom, not the only type or a must, like the market fundamentalist always try and tell us.
I really don't understand this notion of multiple types of freedom... either you're free or you're not.
Yea, and that is why we need some type of common good, like taxes, so that my money and your money both go to pay for some type of common goals, like a school.

Freedom is more complicated than that. It means what does it mean to be a human being. IMO it has multiple aspects. How you deal with government, economics,fear, death, nature, meaning. This isn't just an A or B answer, not to me.That is like saying someone that sits around all day in the woods and doesn't pay any taxes, or involved with the state is as free as someone say like Thomas Jefferson. I view this more as an existential question.
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

doublem wrote: Yea, and that is why we need some type of common good, like taxes, so that my money and your money both go to pay for some type of common goals, like a school.
You know what? I emphatically agree with this. As long as there is mutual consent to the goals and the funding is not acquired through force, I have no problem with it at all. Under such conditions, of course, government is superfluous. Which is exactly my point.
Freedom is more complicated than that. It means what does it mean to be a human being. IMO it has multiple aspects. How you deal with government, economics,fear, death, nature, meaning. This isn't just an A or B answer, not to me.That is like saying someone that sits around all day in the woods and doesn't pay any taxes, or involved with the state is as free as someone say like Thomas Jefferson. I view this more as an existential question.
I disagree. I think freedom is quite simple. Either you are unrestrained to make your way in the world, or you are not. Either you have the ability to make decisions for yourself, or you do not. What good is the freedom of speech of you're speaking out about taxation, and the penalty for not paying taxes is imprisonment?
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

Either you have the ability to make decisions for yourself, or you do not. What good is the freedom of speech of you're speaking out about taxation, and the penalty for not paying taxes is imprisonment?
I disagree with that. :D I don't view shopping as the same freedom as voting, or speech. What good is freedom if you spend your entire life making meaningless choices or stupid ones, you have the freedom to drive drunk, should you? Just becasue they are yours, don't you think you are a little bias. :D If you want to say what is life without making stupid decisions okay, but don't value that choice as something sacred. I could say what is freedom for if you get sick and die when you can't get affordable health care?
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

doublem wrote:
I disagree with that. :D I don't view shopping as the same freedom as voting, or speech. What good is freedom if you spend your entire life making meaningless choices or stupid ones,
Who are you to say what a stupid choice is? Who are you to deny someone the experience of having made and lived with a stupid choice?[/quote]
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

Guinness wrote:
doublem wrote:
I disagree with that. :D I don't view shopping as the same freedom as voting, or speech. What good is freedom if you spend your entire life making meaningless choices or stupid ones,
Who are you to say what a stupid choice is? Who are you to deny someone the experience of having made and lived with a stupid choice?
[/quote]

People make stupid choices everyday. I do, but I don't call it freedom or make it some virtue. It was dumb of me to text and drive, but I don't call that some idealized notion of freedom, just a silly risk that could have waited.Anyways I'm not denying anyone anything by passing laws, I don't think you should in most cases. I'm calling it stupid. Your idea of freedom seems like it would be a lot like A Brave New World.
Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.


The days of Soviet Union type control are over, this is the new control, IMO.
shafnutz05
NHL First Liner
NHL First Liner
Posts: 60559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by shafnutz05 »

So Obama, as CBS News reports, FINALLY has a strategy figured out for Afghanistan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/ ... 2551.shtml

It's about friggin time. Whether you support the president or not, a decision was months overdue. Looks like he is committing to Afghanistan. I support his decision, just wish he would have done it a while ago
Geezer
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
Posts: 8933
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 am

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Geezer »

shafnutz05 wrote:So Obama, as CBS News reports, FINALLY has a strategy figured out for Afghanistan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/ ... 2551.shtml

It's about friggin time. Whether you support the president or not, a decision was months overdue. Looks like he is committing to Afghanistan. I support his decision, just wish he would have done it a while ago
May have been political timing; wait for the Health Bill to pass the House so that the left would be happy. Once he announces a troop increase the Pelosi-ites will be crapping kittens.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

My freedoms :scared: :scared:

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09313/1012065-100.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Guinness
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 11465
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 am
Location: At the pub

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Guinness »

doublem wrote:
Guinness wrote:
doublem wrote:
I disagree with that. :D I don't view shopping as the same freedom as voting, or speech. What good is freedom if you spend your entire life making meaningless choices or stupid ones,
Who are you to say what a stupid choice is? Who are you to deny someone the experience of having made and lived with a stupid choice?
People make stupid choices everyday. I do, but I don't call it freedom or make it some virtue. It was dumb of me to text and drive, but I don't call that some idealized notion of freedom, just a silly risk that could have waited.Anyways I'm not denying anyone anything by passing laws, I don't think you should in most cases. I'm calling it stupid. Your idea of freedom seems like it would be a lot like A Brave New World.
Who cares what you call it? The point is the person was free to make the choice. I don't consider making a choice that has adverse results a virtue, either. But I don't proclaim to know better for someone else to either make a decision for them or to protect them from the consequences of it. (Some of the best learning experiences of my life have been the result of what you would call stupidity. I'm a better, more intelligent person as a result.) Again - who are you to say what people should do with their freedom?

"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences."
Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.


The days of Soviet Union type control are over, this is the new control, IMO.
I've enjoyed Postman's work, and agree with him on a lot of points. I can make a decision to wallow in our debased culture, or I can decide not to. I recognize that it is pervasive and has a sense of ubiquity - I'm not denying that.

Soviet style control is not over.
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
Posts: 4610
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:48 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by bh »

Guinness wrote:I'm not sure I understand. I think it is correct to say that no one can force you to be a slave, so long as you value freedom over life. Practically, we make judgment calls about things like this all the time.
Yes this is what I am getting at. So you are free under any social system to do as you please anyways. It's just the consequences of your actions will be different. So while I agree that freedom of your person is inherent, I sometimes have a hard times seeing property rights the same way. Now I like property rights and believe in them but I just don't see them as an inherent right.
I view income taxation as unconstitutional and immoral
- This is your view, but it is the correct view? This is what I am getting at. I think that the unconstitutional part is correct but the immoral part is what I am interested in. Is it only immoral in the way you define terms or is it inherently immoral?
But I have no say in how my labor is translated into charity. My labor goes to fund two immoral and illegal wars... (I'm getting off track here) it's worse than that - I am funding the killing of other human beings. Government has put me in a position where I must choose between my morals and providing for my family. You know, that's not an exaggeration - the Federal government, for all intents and purposes, has a gun to my head, and asks me to choose. That's only the tip of the iceberg, really.
[/quote]I agree 100% with all of this. When I look at the federal government anymore, i just see a ticking time bomb. 500 billion here, a trillion there, all debt financed, added into the mix more wars and new entitlements, a huge trade deficit, etc. Our economic future is grim. Ending income taxation and the federal reserve would reduce the government to essential services and force them to live within a small budget. Of course it would also make the dollar highly inelastic and I really don't know what effect that would have. I imagine credit would be quite hard to come by then.
Gaucho
NHL Second Liner
NHL Second Liner
Posts: 44375
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Gaucho »

Turns out Huxley was right.
shafnutz05
NHL First Liner
NHL First Liner
Posts: 60559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by shafnutz05 »

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09 ... =mncol;txt

Very, very interesting....apparently the Justice Department, shortly after Obama's inauguration, demanded visitor lists from an independent news website regarding traffic from June 25th, 2008. At the same time, they placed a gag order on the request, barring the website from discussing or revealing the request to the public. Again, this did not happen under Bush, this happened under Obama. Where is the ACLU?

A lot of people tended to think our new president was this fun, likable guy that wanted to bring some fresh air to Washington. What people ARE finding out is that Obama is a cold, calculating, and ruthless politico, and he is surrounded by a team of thugs, armed with Blackberries, subpoenas, and words.
shafnutz05
NHL First Liner
NHL First Liner
Posts: 60559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by shafnutz05 »

EDIT: Apparently the Obama administration responded to CBS News that Obama has NOT met with his advisors yet and has still not reached a decision on Afghanistan.

This president is awful. I have never seen someone that is so challenged when it comes to making decisions. Remind me never to go clothes shopping with him. I wonder if he realizes that the Office of the President includes the title of commander-in-chief, not just "celebrity-in-chief".
Geezer
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
Posts: 8933
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 am

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by Geezer »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... wn-threat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Senate Homeland Security committee issued warning about a Nasan -type scenario over a year ago.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by pittsoccer33 »

Geezer wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... wn-threat/
Senate Homeland Security committee issued warning about a Nasan -type scenario over a year ago.
It certainly wasn't within the last year. They think this guy is a victim. Theyre worried about red necks, anti abortion advocates and white racist vets terrorizing people.
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
Posts: 13430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

Post by doublem »

http://www.salon.com/news/berlin_wall/i ... iversaries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The other great powers chose not to compete with the "New Rome" because they had better things to do with their wealth. The Europeans slashed their military spending after the Cold War to pay for welfare and amenities for their people. The Chinese, having discarded communism in practice, threw their energies into building up a world-class industrial base. If Americans insisted on sacrificing American blood and American treasure to protect oil destined mostly for Europe and East Asia rather than the U.S., well, the Europeans and East Asians were not going to object.
It has gradually dawned on Americans that the dynamic leadership that the times require is not to be found -- not on the right, caught up in a cultish Ghost Dance movement that conflates center-right Democrats with Nazis and Communists and King George, as enemies of the people, and not in the incrementalist, lobby-dominated Democratic Party of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Popular rage is surprisingly limited. The mood overall is one of disillusionment and demoralization, like that of the American people during the Hoover years rather than after Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration.