What is the core of your beliefs?

[spud_meister]

Actually, it does, because said action necessarily involves reaching down under in order to implement the proper procedure for completing the act.

But if you're down under, like I am, wouldn't you then need to reach up, to reach down under?

 

[Gardener]

The actual core of my beliefs has to do with my intuitive sense of right and wrong.

I believe the political act involved balancing the needs of the individual vs the needs of the group in such a way that personal freedoms are maximized in terms of self expression in areas that do not harm others, but minimized in regards to harming others, both as individuals and as a group.

I believe government should promote the general welfare.

 

[Gardener]

But if you're down under, like I am, wouldn't you then need to reach up, to reach down under?

I think that has to do with the magnitude of the equipment at your disposal in pursuit of said objective.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Check out some of the funnier and more ludicrous claims of evolutionary psychology here. It's no theory on which to base a political ideology.

Even without the evolutionary psychology, the theory that nations can be healthy or unhealthy, and that unhealthiness leads to suffering, is enough to justify my beliefs.

Of course they are determined by cultural values. The disagreement is about from where you believe these cultural values derive. The problem here is that I simply reject your idea that humans behave as pack animals. Some do, some don't. Many have transcended that evolved mass psychology, many more reject the idea that our social behaviour is pre-programmed. There are many, many examples of where humans have freely decided not to depend on the notion of a society led by some figurehead 'leader'.

And yet most of them dress alike and make the same quotes from the same authors. :kitty:

You didn't address the main point of that paragraph, questioning where you get the idea that the State is the ultimate expression of tribal instincts. Whose theory is that? What is the scientific basis for that assertion?

It is Mussolini's. While I share his assertion, neither of us makes any assertion that it is objectively true-- it is the ideal he strove for, and the ideal I strive for.

Well, I guess, that might work in a state where people believe in the operation of metaphysical forces to impose accountability on leaders. As a Buddhist I might believe in the concept of karma, but I wouldn't rely on it as a bulwark against an oppressive government.

The Mandate of Heaven is more practical than that. Good Leaders don't get overthrown without outside influence, like the Soviets or the USA during the Cold War.

In place of legitimacy you have power exercised at the point of a gun.

That is legitimacy. That is the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has.

You have no outlet for 'natural' dissent.

I do. It's membership in the Party. The Leader may act alone, but he does not act without counsel.

Conformity, in order to achieve the cohesion you crave, must be imposed on the individual and enforced. Can you conceive of a way to do that that doesn't run the risk of operating a police state?

I consider a police state acceptable.

There is no 'correct' use of such pronouns in English, any more than 'labor' is more correct than 'labour'. Custom and practice rules this and your choice to use exclusively the male pronoun is eloquent in itself.

I prefer Loglan, in which the pronouns do not indicate gender at all. In English, I have no option for a gender-neutral pronoun.

 

[deb]

I believe that one person's rights and responsibility end where another person's rights and responsibility begin. The question then leads to what is a right and what is a commodity.

 

[American]

Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?

Trying to be philosophical?

 

[Elutherian]

My perspective.

 

[Goshin]

Even without the evolutionary psychology, the theory that nations can be healthy or unhealthy, and that unhealthiness leads to suffering, is enough to justify my beliefs.



And yet most of them dress alike and make the same quotes from the same authors. :kitty:



It is Mussolini's. While I share his assertion, neither of us makes any assertion that it is objectively true-- it is the ideal he strove for, and the ideal I strive for.



The Mandate of Heaven is more practical than that. Good Leaders don't get overthrown without outside influence, like the Soviets or the USA during the Cold War.



That is legitimacy. That is the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has.



I do. It's membership in the Party. The Leader may act alone, but he does not act without counsel.



I consider a police state acceptable.



I prefer Loglan, in which the pronouns do not indicate gender at all. In English, I have no option for a gender-neutral pronoun.

I think Fascism would be wonderful.... as long as I got to be the Generalissimo-Supremo. :mrgreen:

But if I can't be the dictator, I don't wanna play. I don't trust anyone else to do the job right.

Actually that's really the single biggest problem with any authoritarian government, whether dictatorial or oligarchial...

The first ruler or set of rulers, may be smart, knowelgeable, practical, reasonable, and even relatively benevolent. His/their rule may benefit the State and the People a great deal.

The next ruling clique may be selfish and abusive. The set after that might be stupid and venal. The set after that might be so out of touch with reality that they destroy the State and ruin the People.


I think this was a Founder quote, or someone commenting on the Founders, who said: "You need to set up a government with checks and balances so that even if your worst enemies end up running the State, the damage they can do is strictly limited."

 

[Morality Games]

I believe people are corrupt, but it is my responsibility to believe they are good.

 

[Andalublue]

I think Fascism would be wonderful....
I think this was a Founder quote, or someone commenting on the Founders, who said: "You need to set up a government with checks and balances so that even if your worst enemies end up running the State, the damage they can do is strictly limited."

I agree. Not with the bit about Fascism being wonderful, but with the bit about checks and balances. Korimir seems to depend on this concept of Mandate of Heaven ensuring that good rulers survive, poor rulers fall. If they do so by violence, and he believes that they often would, so be it. The imposition of authority by physical coercion is "the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has." Now, I'm pretty certain that my home country, the UK hasn't had a coup, revolution or violent overthrow of power for around 320 years. Other nations have, of course, but they are hardly everyday occurrences and the exception rather than the rule for régime change. Perhaps I'm missing something.

He also says:

the theory that nations can be healthy or unhealthy, and that unhealthiness leads to suffering, is enough to justify my beliefs

Well, Kori, no, not really. At the risk of prising your analogies from your cold dead fingers, the whole 'the State as an organism' concept is getting a bit overdone. Using the word 'unhealthy' figuratively, you can discuss nations, polities or communities as such, I guess, but you need a much clearer and more rational analysis of what works and what fails than merely calling on strange, zoological metaphors. I understand that Mussolini used such simplistic concepts to create popular zeal for his animalistic ideas of good governance, but history has certainly given the lie to the claims that strong leadership, violent coercive authority and some semi-mystical collective will makes for happy and prosperous nations. Could it do so? Who knows? I very much doubt it, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would.

 

[Goshin]

I agree. Not with the bit about Fascism being wonderful, but with the bit about checks and balances.

You left off "IF I got to be the dictator" part. I was actually being ironic. In reality, I'm not sure that I would trust even myself with that kind of power.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

You left off "IF I got to be the dictator" part. I was actually being ironic. In reality, I'm not sure that I would trust even myself with that kind of power.

Good. I would not trust you with that type of power either. I-on the other hand-could see myself being a benelovant dictator.

 

[Cold Highway]

Protection of individual liberty and economic liberty.

 

[FederalRepublic]

But what if they only inherit the premature hair loss from their dad and the grunt from their mom?

That's funny stuff right thar.

 

[Andalublue]

You left off "IF I got to be the dictator" part. I was actually being ironic. In reality, I'm not sure that I would trust even myself with that kind of power.

Sorry, I should have thrown a smilie in there to indicate that I got that you were being ironic.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The imposition of authority by physical coercion is "the only legitimacy my government, the only legitimacy your government has, the only legitimacy any government has." Now, I'm pretty certain that my home country, the UK hasn't had a coup, revolution or violent overthrow of power for around 320 years. Other nations have, of course, but they are hardly everyday occurrences and the exception rather than the rule for régime change. Perhaps I'm missing something.

What happens when you defy the laws written by your elected officials? What happens if you try to overthrow them?

Your democracy may work very well in preventing the actual use of violence, but it is still maintained by the threat of violence.

At the risk of prising your analogies from your cold dead fingers, the whole 'the State as an organism' concept is getting a bit overdone. Using the word 'unhealthy' figuratively, you can discuss nations, polities or communities as such, I guess, but you need a much clearer and more rational analysis of what works and what fails than merely calling on strange, zoological metaphors.

If we were discussing particular policies, I would agree with you and I would attempt to provide evidence showing that a particular policy is indeed healthier than the alternatives. We are now discussing core political philosophies, and such matters as the role of the government, the legitimacy of government, and so forth. There is little difference, qualitatively, between my concept of the State as an organism and other posters' vague ideas about freedom and personal responsibility. Even in the absence of the form of government that I advocate, I believe that the State's activities should be similar-- uphold desirable cultural and moral standards and protect the security and the interests of the State, which are a reflection of the security and the interests of the people.

I understand that Mussolini used such simplistic concepts to create popular zeal for his animalistic ideas of good governance, but history has certainly given the lie to the claims that strong leadership, violent coercive authority and some semi-mystical collective will makes for happy and prosperous nations. Could it do so? Who knows? I very much doubt it, and I see no evidence to suggest that it would.

If you compare Fascist states to their existence before and after World War I, you will find vast improvements in the happiness and prosperity of the people living within them. It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

If you compare Fascist states to their existence before and after World War I, you will find vast improvements in the happiness and prosperity of the people living within them. It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.

IDk man, as much better as the situation considering violence living standards, etc was better in those states there was still a massive amount of state violence and repression for the purpose of not-completely-founded utopian aspirations.

/me no likey :shrug:

 

[Goshin]

What happens when you defy the laws written by your elected officials? What happens if you try to overthrow them?

Your democracy may work very well in preventing the actual use of violence, but it is still maintained by the threat of violence.



If we were discussing particular policies, I would agree with you and I would attempt to provide evidence showing that a particular policy is indeed healthier than the alternatives. We are now discussing core political philosophies, and such matters as the role of the government, the legitimacy of government, and so forth. There is little difference, qualitatively, between my concept of the State as an organism and other posters' vague ideas about freedom and personal responsibility. Even in the absence of the form of government that I advocate, I believe that the State's activities should be similar-- uphold desirable cultural and moral standards and protect the security and the interests of the State, which are a reflection of the security and the interests of the people.



If you compare Fascist states to their existence before and after World War I, you will find vast improvements in the happiness and prosperity of the people living within them. It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.

Well, we agree on one thing at least: ALL politicial power is ultimately force.

Or as Mao-Tse Tung put it: all political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

States typically reserve unto themselves the right to initiate force against those who resist their dictates. This is the case in America and Britain as much as Iran and Indonesia. The difference is in the details: the limits on government (ie Constitution), the principles of law and specific laws; the modes and methodology of law enforcement, etc. Some states wear a velvet glove of legitimacy over their iron fist; others leave the iron fist bare... but make no mistake the iron fist is always there.

If you don't believe me, don't pay your taxes for a few years, then resist arrest when they come to get you, and you'll find out the hard way.

 

[Andalublue]

What happens when you defy the laws written by your elected officials? What happens if you try to overthrow them?

Your democracy may work very well in preventing the actual use of violence, but it is still maintained by the threat of violence.

I think Rousseau and Locke explained the social contract better than I can here. Needless to say, I think they covered your bases.

There is little difference, qualitatively, between my concept of the State as an organism and other posters' vague ideas about freedom and personal responsibility.

That's not exactly selling it, now is it?

Even in the absence of the form of government that I advocate, I believe that the State's activities should be similar-- uphold desirable cultural and moral standards and protect the security and the interests of the State, which are a reflection of the security and the interests of the people.

Desirable? In whose eyes? Whose moral standards? In what way does the State become the reflection of the security and interests of the people? That would undoubtedly involve stomping fairly ruthlessly on the "putrid corpse of liberty", wouldn't it?

It was World War II that ruined them-- when they were destroyed from without by larger, more powerful enemies that were every bit as violent and coercive as they.

Are you edging towards making the argument that Germany and Italy were the victims of WWII? They were destroyed from within and what destroyed them was hubris; an ossified command structure which placed too much authority on too few, too inept shoulders; and an over-aggressive, expansionist and brutalist foreign policy based upon these semi-mystical concepts of volk, lebensraum or Romanisation.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think Rousseau and Locke explained the social contract better than I can here. Needless to say, I think they covered your bases.

As the anarchists are fond of putting it, "I never signed any social contract." You have no choice in this contract and it is imposed upon you by force. Whether or not you believe in the social contract, and whether or not you believe the State is living up to it, is a subjective matter.

Desirable? In whose eyes? Whose moral standards?

The only person's that matters. Mine.

If you disagree with my moral standards, you should fight to keep me from controlling the State. Of course, in the process, you would be fighting for control of the State yourself.

In what way does the State become the reflection of the security and interests of the people? That would undoubtedly involve stomping fairly ruthlessly on the "putrid corpse of liberty", wouldn't it?

Only to the degree that liberty contradicts morality.

Are you edging towards making the argument that Germany and Italy were the victims of WWII? They were destroyed from within and what destroyed them was hubris; an ossified command structure which placed too much authority on too few, too inept shoulders; and an over-aggressive, expansionist and brutalist foreign policy based upon these semi-mystical concepts of volk, lebensraum or Romanisation.

Victims? No. They were the losers. I believe that's an important distinction.

We could argue for days on the contribution Hitler's insanity made to his military losses, but if he weren't insane and Japan hadn't made a massive strategic blunder, World War II would have turned out entirely different. Italy's only real error was in siding with Germany and Japan.

 

[Jerry]

I was asked an interesting question today; in one sentence, how would you describe the core idea that your political beliefs rest on?

What's best for my boys.

It seems fairly easy on the surface but it really does make you have to sort of stop and think. Digging down and finding the first brick that makes up the building of your political beliefs isnt easy.

Actually, it was pretty easy as I have moral clarity.

After some considerable thought, I responded by saying I felt there was something fundamentally wrong with a world where one person can afford more of anything than he could ever even hope to use and someone else cant afford to feed themselves.

Socialism FTW?

Idk, I say a rich man should give charity to the poor man when doing so doesn't enable the behavior which made the poor man poor. Imo favoring the poor and hating the rich is on the same level as racism.

 

[Jerry]

Think of a brick wall. If a brick is out of place, the wall is weakened and may fall. If that brick insists on being out of place, can it still be called one of the building blocks of the wall?

Ah but structural integrity is relative, so they argue. You can arrange the bricks in absolutely any manor and no design will be better or worse than any other, they say.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Ah but structural integrity is relative, so they argue. You can arrange the bricks in absolutely any manor and no design will be better or worse than any other, they say.

Nobody has said this. Strawman. Some beliefs are clearly better than others.

 

[librep]

I would say something along the lines of; Though no one should be guaranteed prosperity or success, all should be guaranteed the opportunity to prosper or succeed. Of course that's a massive simplification, but trying to condense an entire viewpoint into a sound byte will do that.

 

[Andalublue]

The only person's that matters. Mine.

If you disagree with my moral standards, you should fight to keep me from controlling the State. Of course, in the process, you would be fighting for control of the State yourself.

I'm quite comfortable in making just a small contribution to the control of the State. I can't be stomping around imposing moral standards all the time, I'd never get any Scrabble played. You might get to take the salute from your Stormtroopers on the Mall, but I'd make triple word score on 'equalize'.

Only to the degree that liberty contradicts morality.

Now we're talking about purely subjective matters.

Victims? No. They were the losers. I believe that's an important distinction.

And instigators. And aggressors.

We could argue for days on the contribution Hitler's insanity made to his military losses, but if he weren't insane and Japan hadn't made a massive strategic blunder, World War II would have turned out entirely different.

Yes, I dare say we could. I don't believe Hitler was insane. I believe he was a sociopath, not a psychopath and I believe there's quite a distinction to be made between mental illness and personality disorders.

Italy's only real error was in siding with Germany and Japan.

I think they did a little more than 'side' with Germany. Mussolini was like a bitch on heat. The two countries' co-operation during the Spanish Civil War pretty much sealed their ultimate sinking in the same boat. Of course, Italy's other handicap was being a nation of spaghetti eating surrender chimps. :surrender