U.S. Politics: Register to vote, the election is nigh

[Wise Fool]

Are you really taking the position that the substance of one's political philosophy should be judged by how significantly they are personally offended by violations of it?

Because if so, that's absurdly stupid.

If that political philosophy tends, as it does in this case, to result in many tiresome arguments against a particular political position based on the alleged supremacy of a concept of free will being taken as something morally good (and that therefore, 'coercion' of that 'freedom' is morally evil) - in other words, a systematic sort of taking-offense-at-things - then yes, how a person who holds that philosophy reacts to other things that should (but don't? is the question) inspire a similar attitude of being-offended-by-teh-tyranny is a valid point of discussion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TUM,

As to equating money with speech- leaving aside the ridiculous notion of corporate personhood (are governments people as well? What about unions? The Red Cross?)

The fiction of "personhood" is why corporate entities exist. They insulate their members from direct liabilty for corporate actions. Yes, all the entities you list are jural people.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Hey Nestor, what's it like up there on the moral high ground? Perhaps you can swing the conversation to a better place by commenting on her stance in a substantive manner.

I'm not terribly inclined to do someone else's job for them. I have zero issue with people criticizing Athias' political philosophy, provided that they do so in manner that addresses the substance of the philosophy. But I do have an issue when, in lieu of substantive criticism, people engage in insults, caricaturization, and derision. Everyone should be above this, but it's particularly grating to see it when Athias is, for whatever other criticisms people may have with her (?), unfailingly respectful and responsive with her posts.

[Ormond]

I'm not sure scorn is an "emotion."

Scorn is an expression of contempt, and contempt is an emotion, being one of the seven basic emotions for which there are universal facial expressions among humans.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

If that political philosophy tends, as it does in this case, to result in many tiresome arguments against a particular political position based on the alleged supremacy of a concept of free will being taken as something morally good (and that therefore, 'coercion' of that 'freedom' is morally evil) - in other words, a systematic sort of taking-offense-at-things - then yes, how a person who holds that philosophy reacts to other things that should (but don't? is the question) inspire a similar attitude of being-offended-by-teh-tyranny is a valid point of discussion.

Oh, then you really believe this. In which case, you're just absurdly, inexplicably incorrect.

Whether or not a person is "offended" by any particular act is an emotional response. A political philosophy isn't rendered valid or invalid by the intensity of one person's emotional response to any one particular issue. If you think it does, you're wrong, and you should be questioning why you use the same standard of judging the correctness of an argument as Stephen Colbert.

[Swordfish]

I'm not terribly inclined to do someone else's job for them. I have zero issue with people criticizing Athias' political philosophy, provided that they do so in manner that addresses the substance of the philosophy. But I do have an issue when, in lieu of substantive criticism, people engage in insults, caricaturization, and derision. Everyone should be above this, but it's particularly grating to see it when Athias is, for whatever other criticisms people may have with her (?), unfailingly respectful and responsive with her posts.

No offense, but Is this your first day in the politics thread?

Because that is how this thread works......

[Wise Fool]

Oh, then you really believe this. In which case, you're just absurdly, inexplicably incorrect.

Whether or not a person is "offended" by any particular act is an emotional response. A political philosophy isn't rendered valid or invalid by the intensity of one person's emotional response to any one particular issue.

It is, however, a valid point of discussion, as I've just said. And while I for one would enjoy precisely removing political philosophies from the realm of emotion, I'm not going to pretend that this is already done. Especially when the political discussion has, long before my own absurd and inexplicable entry into it, become demonstrably emotional.

[Altherion]

I'm not trying to experience "Anarchy;" I'm trying to experience free and voluntary associations, authority over choices concerning myself, voluntary dependence and independence, complete authority to behave property as I desire, etc. I do appreciate these consequences, and the notion that you believe you're some authority on how well i appreciate these consequences, without knowing a single thing about me, is presumptuous.

I think the consequences in question were that, at best, people less opposed to coercion would simply take everything you have (at worst, they would also kill you). One doesn't need to know much about a person to say that they will not like such consequences.

More generally, the problem with your idea is that you may choose to live by free and voluntary associations and such, but you cannot make that choice for everyone else. Force (or coercion or violence or whatever you want to call it) is almost always the argument of last resort -- we may not like it and perhaps even have philosophical arguments against its use, but it determines physical reality and there has never been a shortage of human beings willing to use it.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It is, however, a valid point of discussion, as I've just said. And while I for one would enjoy precisely removing political philosophies from the realm of emotion, I'm not going to pretend that this is already done. Especially when the political discussion has, long before my own absurd and inexplicable entry into it, become demonstrably emotional.

You're just piling one non-sequitur on top of another.

The fact that people sometimes get emotional during political discussions does not mean that one's emotional response to any particular injustice has any impact upon the validity or correctness of their political philosophy. The validity or correctness of one's political philosophy has nothing to do with how they personally respond to any particular alleged, perceived or actual injustice.

[BloodRider]

What exactly is so great about everyone else's plans that they justify using force against the individual? I assume in this scenario that the individual is not himself using force, or presenting a threat to anyone, just refusing to contribute. As annoying as that person may be, is putting a gun to his head the just course of action?

And how does Libertarianism avoid using force on the individual? Other than some circular reasoning, that is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

It doesn't. But it does attempt to limit when force may be used to those situations where one party or one group seeks to coerce others. Coersion shouldn't be used except in an effort to prevent an existing coersion.

In other words force would be proper if Bob seeks to coerce Sally into selling her property to Bob.

That is why "libertarian" is not a term that is coextensive with "anarchist".

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Let's cut out the personal insults. Strong words and severe language on the ideas are ok, and we tolerate a fair bit of leeway in the politics thread. But let's stay on this side of the line of direct name calling with no substantive basis, i.e. calling someone a conservative may be seen as an insult but as long as you can back up the claim then it's ok. Calling someone childish, on the other hand, is not ok.

[/mod hat]

[TerraPrime]

Re:Athias

Then I don't know what the real application is for your set of political analysis.

If receiving coercion is acceptable when the participant agrees, before hand and freely, to subject themself to that rule, then the only time that modern democracy will run afoul your analysis will be if the democracy also stops people from leaving said democratic jurisdiction.

Take the United States for instance - there are no rules against anyone relinquishing citizenship of the United States and to become citizen of another country, or even, be an international nomad roaming the world on a ship sailing upon international waters. Therefore, people who stay as citizens here are agreeing to the rules of the game here. So, whence the complaint of coercion again?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Vice-President irritated me today. He was in town for a Democratic Party fundraiser and half the roads I use to travel to court were roadblocked to allow his motorcade through. Therefore, in wool suit I had the pleasure of walking about a mile to and from the local courthouse because thats when he happened to be coming through town.

*grumble*

[Guy Kilmore]

The Vice-President irritated me today. He was in town for a Democratic Party fundraiser and half the roads I use to travel to court were roadblocked to allow his motorcade through. Therefore, in wool suit I had the pleasure of walking about a mile to and from the local courthouse because thats when he happened to be coming through town.

*grumble*

You have my sympathy. I was down that way for my sister's wedding over the summer and had to wear a tux all day in that Humidity. I don't know how you guys do it. (I did not know the trick of wearing an undershirt, luckily it didn't stick too much!)

[TerraPrime]

You have my sympathy. I was down that way for my sister's wedding over the summer and had to wear a tux all day in that Humidity. I don't know how you guys do it. (I did not know the trick of wearing an undershirt, luckily it didn't stick too much!)

People don't wear undershirts with dress shirts routinely? O_o;

[Shryke]

Except, I didn't make the issue of enforcement--which is something you are projecting. And no, rules don't need to be enforced--just agreed to. Take this forum, for example: when initially joining this site, I agreed to terms that would dictate my participation. I am free to participate and associate with this site, or not associate, and this site is free associate with me, as long as our agreement is maintained. Now if I come in breech of this agreement, the forum can continue to associate with me or it can withdraw its association--it is still free to associate with me--particularly by denying my access. This isn't coercive since outside of our agreed terms, I have no claim to access. There's no intimidation or threat of violence -- the site is merely exercising its right in granting and denying access.

is a fallacious argument since this site is the epitome of systemic rules without the use of coercion. The mods can ban you; they can issue warnings; but they cannot compel behavior through intimidation and compel obedience. Because the nature of the exercise of authority is neither immoral nor aggressive.

I know you didn't. That's the whole problem. You are ignoring the issue of enforcement because it blows a massive hole through the skull of your argument. Rules do need to be enforced. That is by their very nature. Because if they aren't, they aren't really rules. There is no reason for someone to follow them.

This site is a perfect example. Banning is coercion. It is force. It is completely removing your ability to participate in the site. You are forcibly removed from it.

Well I can try to convince you to not liberate my brain matter from the tyrannical oppression of my skull-casing. Or, I can just kill you. I don't subourn the latter -- I'm merely mentioning options that don't involve "coercive force to extract compliance" which rebuts the part I've emboldened. (You can't comply if you're dead.) You've interpreted my statement incorrectly, Shryke. I'm not suggesting that a person should transmute rules, as they please, particularly when it involves the participation of another. I wrote, "every person is free to decide, individually, to submit themselves to a set of rules until they agree to another rule-set that informs the contrary." Perhaps I should have expanded on it. I'm referring to association. So let me rephrase: a person should be able to submit themselves to a set of rules for which one is willing to associate with another or others until one agrees--operative word here since agreeing with oneself is already presumed--to another set of rules that contradicts one's current association. In that case, the person can decide to continue participation or withdraw, not dictate or submit someone else to "the new rule." I've actually made that point quite clear here:

And you are again ignoring the fact that no matter what you might feel, I can force you to submit to my rules via force and without oppositional force, you cannot do anything about it. You cannot choose. I have taken that from you and you cannot get it back without the application of force.

Every person is not able to freely associate unless someone is there enforcing that right. Even the most hardcore of libertarians understand this, which is why they make contract enforcement the cornerstone of their political philosophy.

Basically, your whole "argument" is to be against coercive force and then pretend everyone will just get along. Because the alternative is admitting that your ideas do no actually work in a world with people in it.

[Guy Kilmore]

People don't wear undershirts with dress shirts routinely? O_o;

I know I don't, it gets too hot, but I tend not to sweat much either, so I can get away from it. I just didn't thinking on the humidity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I always wear undershirts with my suits. Failing to do so could be embarassing if it is warmer than anticipated.

[Shryke]

As to equating money with speech- leaving aside the ridiculous notion of corporate personhood (are governments people as well? What about unions? The Red Cross?) I am uncomfortable with equating an economic utility with a political right, especially given the concentration of wealth. I believe this to be an issue that needs to be addressed. I do not believe simply dismissing these concerns as impractical is an acceptable rebuttal.

Money itself is not a "political right", but the use of it can certainly be an expression of political intent.

IMO the whole "money is not speech" argument just isn't supportable. Spending money is a form of political expression. One must simply come to terms with the fact that, like any form of expression, political expression can and in this case, must, be limited.

At some point, one must become comfortable with the fact that there are limits to rights and freedoms.