Politics
Out of context: Reply #12528
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ********0
Lucky your response is awesome. For the fact it breaks it down better.
First off I should mention for context i have never given much credence to any type of platform as a whole, including libertarian. I do not believe in such classifications as fact, more just a general feel and the general types of philosophies and beliefs associated with them. Treating any political platform as a whole is very similiar to trading CDOs. Bad ideas combined with good ideas and sold as whole. This way the bad ideas gain value. if it was piece meal and treated individually(non-party/platform) it would be so much better. And also since party type platforms consist of so many various beliefs/values, most people make the assumption that what they believe a platform consists of the same thing the other person thinks it consists of. This where reason would help people understand each other so much better on politics instead of sellign it as entertainment with a team mentality. To think of all ideas mashed as a whole is ridiculous and worthless to bash the generalization or team.
With that said i hope you have a better understanding where i am coming from. and now i have a better idea where you are coming from and we can begin to try and understand each other instead of wasting time talking about large generalities without any substance (or posting stupid pictures, regardless if theyre entertaining).
And i agree with you about individual liberty. I hold it as the highest value among men. And i think what you are saying about libertarians beliefs absolving the individual of any responsibility to a larger community...is true and also a negative misconception. Yes the individual has no responsibility to a large undefined collective. Just as blacks are not to be slaves of the collective white man. In this instance look at the greater good achieved by having cheap labor to the whole of the american people(whole being whites and blacks not looked at individually). It allowed more profit and growth for a portion of the collective, at the loss of the other. And in this stance individual rights is important. Yes we can have more by taking away the rights of a few, but we refuse to because we value individual rights.Which the founders didn't quite understand or more likely chose to overlook becuase of types of social conditioning.... which allows societies actions to supercede logical argument and hypocrisy becomes ok. Which is why its so important ot be objective... But back to the main point you cant have individual rights and expect or demand individuals to be concerned with a collective. its sort of a catch 22. However with intelligence and the ability to acknowledge symbiotic relationships we could offer more community services without sacrificing liberty (google). But human intelligenc eand reason is important for peopel to figure out what is a symbiotic realtionship instead of gov deciding what they think is symbiotic for votes or money. Intelligence is key.
as far as foreign policy goes. that becomes political and the individualist or libertarian philosophy should be acknowledged as the base and reason and debate with a proper majority rule should happen.However majority rule could lead to denial of certain people individual rights. Like a draft. And a decision like that is to hard to talk about in generalities. It depends on peoples intelligence and so many other factors. That you cant blanket a right or wrong decision/view. You can only hope a intelligent populace will make the right free decision wether to fight or not. Every individual will have supproting or opposing views, becuase the fact that we are individuals. The democratically elected leader in such cases i hope is smart enough to evaulate and weigh out such a decision. War is hell and can only be conquered through objective reasonable understanding.
On drugs a libertarian view would be to let any man decide his own fate. And let drugs be freetrade. I see this as being a individual libery for sure and should be. But looking at the nature of certain drugs and peoples lack of knowledge of them and what they can do im split. Its a tough call. Does a government decide to protect people from what they do not know? I think certain drugs should be banned. I take this stance knowing fully well its wrong. It goes against the simple principals. However i would choose to state it as such. That it is a necessary evil. Which may seem contradictory to the belief.But those are the hard decisions politics demand. Its all about evaulation, reason, and objectivity. Just becuase it s hard decision doesnt make any reason right jsut through action.
There is hard decisions but all should be based on recognizing the philosophy of individual rights, and then those in power i hope make right decisions even if personally i don't beleive are right and let a objective future decide wether it was. to make honest objective decisions based on reality is what its all about while using individual rights and reason as the base. there will be arguments, and disagreements but hopefully theyre based on logic and people acknowledge and understand the basis of disagreement.
and in the case of rand paul id say let him have his way. destroy the portiions of the civil rights act that debase peoples individual rights. see if the people have finally become inteliigent enough to understand why the laws were placed. see if man has evolved enough to treat each other respectfully. of course 100% percent likely will not have evolved enough. but if 90% percent have that is great progress. the civil rights act was a necessary evil to change social conditioning of a period of time. think of it as training wheels. after all what is the point of a necessary evil in a free society if it must be enacted forever. if it was enacted forever then we can give up on any such idea of a free society. quit with the illusion and see if this necessary evil was successful in implementation.
and i apologize if i trailed off on tangents. im not very good with such broad topics.; libertarian and such topics as a whole or maintianing individual liberties in broad military type situations or drug scenarios. Especially since in my mind i give peoples intelligence far too much credit. im better in more direct instances of giving objective reasons.
and i admit the question was super loaded about defining your views on libertarian platform and what you thought was wrong. I asked becuase i really didnt beleiv eyou to attempt to define such a large view. especially in this type of medium. but im happy you did try. and i tried to address mine, but unfortunately i dont think i did them justice and i dont think you got your reasons fully expressed either. guess the medium defines the quality and content.
- TEABAGGERS UNITE®utopian
- db, this is now my favorite post in this entire thread. You've eloquently described the aspects of libertarianism that I agreemathinc
- with.. as well as the aspects I find difficult (i.e. full-scale drug legalization). Bravo sir, bravo.mathinc
- Gotta disagree with most of this, but I'll work on a worthy reply. Thanks for taking the time, db.luckyorphan