Political Theory

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Solredime — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:31:44 GMT

Ego:

That's a poor analogy. A better analogy:

Ancaps are opposed to using violence to achieve their goals. However, if someone is threatening an ancap with violence, ancaps will use violence to fight back.

How is this even related? The secular ethical system acting as a backbone to ancaps only condemns the initiation of violence, not violence per say. Whether you use violence in self-defense or not is purely a personal preference, and has nothing to do with a general theory of libertarian ethics.

My analogy might not be great, but that really doesn't matter. The fact remains that by advocating means that are inconsistent with a goal, you essentially forfeit ethics. If you then adopt a purely utilitarian position about the political process, in the hopes of choosing the lesser evil, that's fine, but from that point on you must, in order to be consistent, abandon any attempts to defend anarcho-capitalism from an ethical perspective, and instead focus purely on the economical advantages - something that certainly won't be easy.

Edit: Damn, what I typed up was essentially already said by others. Ah well, I'm leaving it anyway.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:56:52 GMT

Ego:

From the standpoint of consistancy, the distinction between person A ("left") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance X and person B ("right") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance Y is largely irrelevant.

Surely, you don't mean to say that the distinction between nationalized health care and banning flag-burning is irrelevant!? Nationalized health care is not only a much larger violation of rights, it's much, much, much, much, more difficult to undo.

From the standpoint of consistancy to a principle, the choice between canidate A who wishes to violate the principle for issue X and canidate B who wishes to violate the principle for issue Y is a false choice that forces you to aschew the principle no matter which way you choose. The choices presented to us in political democracy all suffer from glaring inconsistancies. The distinction between which particular inconsistancies they have is irrelevant from the perspective of one who is trying to remain entirely consistant. Even if you can prove that canidate A's inconsistancies are moderately less dangerous than those of canidate B, it does not logically follow that you should support canidate A or that canidate A is the best goal to strive from at the moment. If one is actually trying to remain consistant, they must reject both.

The radical tries to remain on the side of consistancy. Only the pragmatist or utilitarian would be willing to breach consistancy in the name of a comparative or mere cost-benefit analysis.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Ego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:08:24 GMT

I absolutely agree that neither evil should be tolerated.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Nitroadict — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:59:08 GMT

Ego:

From the standpoint of consistancy, the distinction between person A ("left") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance X and person B ("right") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance Y is largely irrelevant.

Surely, you don't mean to say that the distinction between nationalized health care and banning flag-burning is irrelevant!? Nationalized health care is not only a much larger violation of rights, it's much, much, much, much, more difficult to undo.

I thought the boogeyman didn't exist?

It really just seems that you keep bringing up "greater evils" (nationalized healthcare) in order to excuse voting at all, in order to lessen the impact of overall evils, by going for the lesser of evils (McCain, in this instance, since he would supposedly delay healthcare). The lesser of evils argument is irrelevant since it does not address that both evils are just plain and simple evils that should not be tolerated either way.

Tolerating the lesser, instead of the greater, serves to ultimatley apologize for evil itself, which is why political means will not be the answer, as the increasingly Statist-pandering LP party itself shows, the RP platform (while supposedly "radical" compared other Statist candidates, is still Statist), and the infilteration of the libertarian movement by Statist sympathizers (whether left right or rainbow, whatever) clearly indicates. Libertarianism is apolitical movement, and so called libertarians who are political are not really libertarian at all.

Libertarianism is not a polite dinner conversation, it is an inherently radical philospohy that advocates gettting rid of a inherently flawed, Statist system in favor of apolitical system that favors the non-aggression principle and solves the problems of the Statism system.

Honestly, if the Statist system were represented or paralleled as some type of flawed system (say in mathematics, computer science & programming, etc.), I hardly see how people would have any qualms about abolishing it in favor of a new system that would solve the previous' system's problems.

So yea, basically you're argument doesn't make sense to me. Sorry for the sligtly long winded post, Ego.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Ego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:38:19 GMT

From the standpoint of consistancy, the distinction between person A ("left") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance X and person B ("right") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance Y is largely irrelevant.

Surely, you don't mean to say that the distinction between nationalized health care and banning flag-burning is irrelevant!? Nationalized health care is not only a much larger violation of rights, it's much, much, much, much, more difficult to undo.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Niccolò — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:17:57 GMT

Brainpolice:

Define "capitalist reforms". I might actually oppose all of them depending on what you mean by the term.

He means Pinochet style capitalism.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Solomon — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:21:10 GMT

Supporting liberty and individualism is not a quality of (American) rightists qua rightists. That some do is rather a result of 1) the fact that the US has historically been a relatively libertarian country, and 2) traditionalism of some degree being in general an attribute of rightism. Ultimately, the only reason republican talk show hosts (and as a result, all republicans) might like lower taxes and free trade is because that's what Americans of a hundred years ago liked.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:17:38 GMT

Ego:

If you consider yourself a member of the "radical libertarian left" then I do indeed draw a distinction between you and people like Obama.

You're the one using misleading language, however, when you say things like "leftists are our natural allies" when you aren't actually talking about modern leftists. It serves no purpose to use personal definitions.

What's a capitalist reform? A ballot initiative to cut taxes and eliminate price controls.

I never said that "leftists are our natural allies". I merely put libertarianism in its historical context as in large part being an outgrowth of "the left" in the 19th century. According to my view of the political spectrum, the libertarian's natural allies are - libertarians, wether they lean "left" or "right". The problem with the assumption that "the right are our natural allies against the evil left", as I see it, is that the bulk of contemporary conservatism is not particularly libertarian and to oppose the entire "left" irrespective of context is to aschew all libertarian-leaning or outright anarchist people on "the left".

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Niccolò — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:13:46 GMT

Stranger:

The creation of a political spectrum is a pure product of democratic electoral strategy. Individuals seeking to promote their self-interest ally with others with compatible self-interests to make gains at the expense of individuals with incompatible self-interests, or simply unnecessary individuals. The result is social destruction.

Without democracy it is quite clear that people have more interest to cooperate than to align in antagonistic groups.

Just look at what is happening to the Democratic and Libertarian parties. The general party interest is being ruined because two factions of the party are conducting character assassinations on the other faction's leader. The goal is to gain control of the party at the expense of the other side. No one is responsible for the party's interest as a whole. This is what happens in the absence of private property. Conflict and fighting emerges.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Ego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:08:05 GMT

If you consider yourself a member of the "radical libertarian left" then I do indeed draw a distinction between you and people like Obama.

You're the one using misleading language, however, when you say things like "leftists are our natural allies" when you aren't actually talking about modern leftists. It serves no purpose to use personal definitions.

What's a capitalist reform? A ballot initiative to cut taxes and eliminate price controls.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:02:39 GMT

I agree with you on this: the terms "left" and "right" are incredibly confusing and are sometimes entirely meaningless. That doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) draw distinctions of our own!

The main distinction to draw is between liberty and tyranny, not "left" and "right". That's the whole point of my first spectrum.

It serves no purpose to lump college leftists (you know, the self-important idiots who want a maximum wage, cradle-to-grave welfare, affirmative action, and a maximum work week) with people like Neal Boortz, who hate leftists' guts, purely because they are all "statists".

It serves no constructive purpose to lump these college "leftists" in with the actual radical libertarian "left". Speaking of the need for distinctions, you don't seem to draw any distinctions between segments of "the left". Going by your view, I should lump Benjamin Tucker or Mikhail Bakunin in with Stalin or Hillary Clinton.

And Neal Boortz is a statist himself, so there is an inconsistancy here. Furthermore, as I alluded to in my own distinction, clearly the entire "left" is not made up of statists, for that would ignore the anarchist movement entirely (which, mind you, is in fact dominated by "the left"). In comparison to some "leftists", it is Neal Boortz who is the statist.

Regardless of the words you personally want to use to describe the first group or the second group, don't try to claim that the distinction is insignificant (or purely "style"). It's not. They represent vastly different mindsets and beliefs, and one group (hint: the leftists) are much less likely to support capitalist reforms. This isn't even an argument.

From the standpoint of consistancy, the distinction between person A ("left") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance X and person B ("right") who wants to violate my rights in the name of preferance Y is largely irrelevant.

Define "capitalist reforms". I might actually oppose all of them depending on what you mean by the term.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Ego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:54:31 GMT

I agree with you on this: the terms "left" and "right" are incredibly confusing and are sometimes entirely meaningless. That doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) draw distinctions of our own!

It serves no purpose to lump college leftists (you know, the self-important idiots who want a maximum wage, cradle-to-grave welfare, affirmative action, and a maximum work week) with people like Neal Boortz, who hate leftists' guts, purely because they are all "statists".

Regardless of the words you personally want to use to describe the first group or the second group, don't try to claim that the distinction is insignificant (or purely "style"). It's not. They represent vastly different mindsets and beliefs, and one group (hint: the leftists) are much less likely to support capitalist reforms. This isn't even an argument.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:46:03 GMT

We don't have a choice but to choose between the lesser of two evils!

This is a common premise that statism relies on to keep itself going, I.E. to force the lay population into being pragmatic to the point where they don't meaningfully challenge the root problem at all.

And I'm going to come out and make a blanket statement: yes, for the most part, leftists are the only people capable of being that smug and self-important. Their entire philisophy is built around the belief that people are too stupid to run their own lives, so they need wise leftist planners to run it for them.

There is nothing exclusive or particular to "the left" about the idea that people are too stupid to run their own lives so they need wise planners to run it for them. That's the general hobbesian premise of statism altogether: people are naturally evil and selfish and greedy and stupid, therefore we need the state to keep them in check, we need to place people in positions of power to hold back our baser natures (of course this is a self-contradictary premise, since those who make up the state will therefore be evil, selfish, greedy and stupid too). The premise that people are incapable of self-rule and therefore they need to be ruled by eachother is not a "leftist" notion, it's part of the root all statism.

Why do you equate statism as a whole with "the left", when quite clearly "the right" is a significant part of it? The political left and right don't disagree on the statist premise. They only disagree on how to apply it.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:34:35 GMT

I'm not "attached" to rightists at all. I am opposed to any and all attempts to support lefitsts. To be leftist it to be collectivist, self-important, and smug. It's as simple as that.

If "leftist" uniformly equates to "collectivist", then explain to me how 19th century individualist anarchism, which is often considered to be a "left-wing" and "socialist" tradition, is collectivist and self-important. Or explain to me Proudhon's rather emphatic writtings on "the sovereignty of the individual". Or explain to me how collectivists such as white nationalists, theocrats and hardcore racists are actually "leftist". It's downright absurd when one actually breaks it down.

"Leftists" may actually be more prone to oppose certain forms of collectivism depending on the context. Historically, it has been "leftists" who have most often opposed religious, national and racial collectivism. Anti-war sentiment has always been strongest on "the left". Opposition to police powers has always been strongest on "the left", while "the right" is largely filled with "law and order" fetishists. To simply brush the entire "left" aside as inherently collectivist and statist is simply ignorant.

The political left does not have a monopoly on collectivism and the political right does not have a monopoly on individualism. Your own analysis is collectivist in that it assumes that one side or the other is holistically one or the other. You know why I have respect for certain segments of the historical "left" (such as Proudhon and Tucker)? Because without the ideas of such people, libertarianism as we know it wouldn't exist. It simply wouldn't exist because libertarianism grew out of the "left" of the 18th and 19th centuries. That's simply a historical truth that libertarians who consider themselves to be a part of "the right" are going to have to come to terms with in order to have a better self-understanding.

Re: My View of Contemporary Politics

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:21:45 GMT

Inquisitor:

Ego, why are you so attached to the left-right division, and those who call themselves rightists? I think BP's point is that one is a libertarian unqualifiedly, with the remnant being cultural choice. I see no reason to identify with the right over the left anymore, as both have no desire to avail themselves of non-statist means to achieve their goals, but rather have no other desire than expanding their share of the economic pie. McCain is a primary example of a rightist who is as statist as either of his leftist rivals.

Right. In the first spectrum I present I'm merely echoing Walter Block from his analysis of fascism and communism or his article about libertarianism and culture. He basically advocates what he calls a "plumb-line" approach to libertarianism that is "thin" and neutral to the political "left" and "right". Libertarianism doesn't require any particular cultural preferances per se. The second spectrum I present (which is really the same spectrum with a word change that eliminates the inconsequential axis of the political left and right) stills holds on to that premise but tries to put it in historical context.