View Poll Results: Do you believe in these ideals and how highly do you hold them?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes i believe in them and they are supreme to me

    15 68.18%
  • Yes I beleive in them but they are in the background

    3 13.64%
  • No I do not believe in them.

    3 13.64%
  • I am progressive, these "truths" where then but we have evolved and have new truths.

    1 4.55%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Do you Believe?

  1. #31
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    You consider the founding fathers "liberals"?
    By the dictionary definition. For that matter, I consider practically the entirety of American mainstream politics to be "liberal", except for a handful of social conservatives and hardcore "national security" types like Vice President Cheney. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" today are born out of the American liberal tradition established by our Founding Fathers, differing only in interpretation of their writings and legal documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by kamino View Post
    i actually agree with this. Violance is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. The has indeed been a shift in force from the people and states to the federal government.
    Of course. Funny thing, everyone wants to blame Roosevelt for this, except some small number of people who go back to Lincoln. It started with Jefferson himself, with both the Louisiana Purchase and the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by kamino View Post
    Well in the true meaning of liberalism yes I agree, but these current so called liberalists are nothing more then progressives...
    Quote Originally Posted by kamino View Post
    ... but conservatives within the U.S. political scale wish to secure those political liberalism...
    How do you square these two statements with the progressive position on civil liberties for women and homosexuals, and the conservative position on the enforcement of religious morality and teaching of religious moral values by the State? There's an authoritarian streak in both movements, but they're both fundamentally liberal.

    For the record, I consider myself an authoritarian progressive, but I don't square with a lot of modern progressive ideals concerning identity politics and multiculturalism. I'm a staunch nationalist who believes that the ideal of the melting pot requires immigrants and minorities to assimilate into mainstream society and to consider themselves Americans first and foremost. The modern movement has lost sight of the ideals of President Theodore Roosevelt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Gail Wynand, a character in Rand's novel, thought he had a lot power since he had wealth and a nationwide newspaper chain. When he tried to use the chain to say something that the people didn't like, he found out that they actually had the power over him.
    That's a result of deriving all of his power from a single source, that was itself dependent upon public opinion-- and thinking that he was in control of the people who provided his wealth and power. If he'd maintained resources outside of his newspaper and approached his unpopular ideas more subtly, he would have retained and even expanded his power.

    And the problem with Rand's fiction is that all of it is written in support of her intended moral, so of course the plot resolves in such fashion to "prove" it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    The need to control others puts you in the power of others, I guess is my muddy ill-expressed point. Can ya hose it off and take a look at it ?
    Your existence puts you in the power of others. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you are under the power-- and under the mercy-- of other people... and one of the things that you require as a human being is the companionship and esteem of other people. At best, you can-- through exercise of power, mind you-- achieve near total self-sufficiency for your family group, but then you still require the cooperation of the outside world to obtain mates.

    The moral of the Wynand story, as I understand it, is that failing to recognize the source and nature of your power means risking the misuse and sudden failure of that power. Everyone should know and understand the source of their power, and the limits of it, in order to exercise and develop it prudently. The fact that so many people fail at this is what provides opportunities for upstarts and rogues.

    Moral authority is a very sticky source of power, because while it gives you tremendous influence over the thoughts and actions of others, that power is conditional upon their recognition of your moral authority-- which means that you cannot contradict the moral values they have imbued you with. Major changes in ideology or goals must be approached slowly and carefully.

    On the other hand, moral authority is the best kind of power to wield... because if you are attacked, even people who do not accept your authority directly will spring to your defense. It is the safest and most enduring form of power that a human being can wield, as long as they acknowledge its limits.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Do you Believe?

    Thanks much for your well considered response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Your existence puts you in the power of others. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you are under the power-- and under the mercy-- of other people... and one of the things that you require as a human being is the companionship and esteem of other people. At best, you can-- through exercise of power, mind you-- achieve near total self-sufficiency for your family group, but then you still require the cooperation of the outside world to obtain mates.
    I think the self-sufficiency you mention here, might be the kind freedom I was getting at, as I earlier contrasted against an idealistic pablum kind of notion.

    I guess I am completely in agreement with the analysis that you gave when it comes to "don't tread on me", but the flavor of that analysis seemed to imply that I had to tread on others to get them not to tread on me. After I defend myself and my free will, I no longer seek power over others, but to maximize my voluntary interactions with them. What things can we do that we both enjoy and both profit by ? What can I learn from them, what can I enjoy teaching to them ? Once I have defended my self and my freedom, my "grail" is no longer power, but mutually voluntary interaction.

    Again, thanks for your response and please consider this not an attempt at rebuttal but merely more exploratory commentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    On the other hand, moral authority is the best kind of power to wield... because if you are attacked, even people who do not accept your authority directly will spring to your defense. It is the safest and most enduring form of power that a human being can wield, as long as they acknowledge its limits.
    I agree here, and I think that voluntary interaction is in line with the same notion, and shooting for the same kind of moral authority as the golden rule.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Sure, I agree with the DoI, once the mystic "creator" stuff is explained away and the understanding of what was meant in that document by the word "equal".

    What it ultimately boils down to is that men should not be forced into chains, that all men should be equal before the law, and that all men should be free to seek their own destinies, so long as their excercise of those freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

    I'm also perfectly aware that the DoI was written when the colonies still practiced the peculiar institution, and I recognize the DoI for the spirit it was intended for, not the practical realities of the day.

  4. #34
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    I guess I am completely in agreement with the analysis that you gave when it comes to "don't tread on me", but the flavor of that analysis seemed to imply that I had to tread on others to get them not to tread on me.
    It isn't so much that you have to tread on others to get them not to tread on you-- it's that you have to be able to, and other people have to recognize that you're able to. Whether or not you actually have to trample someone to demonstrate this is a matter of the individual situation.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    It isn't so much that you have to tread on others to get them not to tread on you-- it's that you have to be able to, and other people have to recognize that you're able to. Whether or not you actually have to trample someone to demonstrate this is a matter of the individual situation.
    Pretty nigh impossible in a police state that claims a monopoly on force.

    It becomes a barking contest between toothless dogs.

  6. #36
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    When the police and the courts deprive you of your other weapons, the police and the courts themselves become your primary weapons.

    You can kill a man with a gun. Attack him with the courts, you can destroy his fortune, his reputation, his family and eventually drive him to kill himself. And you don't need much more justification for it, either.

    And, of course, don't forget just how much coercive power you can wield with your "voluntary interactions" when they involve necessary goods.

  7. #37
    Banned gree0232's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    All over
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,341

    Re: Do you Believe?

    There are a couple of points that i think need to be made.

    1. One our Declaration of Independance lead to the document that truly defines us, the Constitution with its amendments (Bill of Rights), that document is a living document. Though its core remains intact, it has clearly grown, and with abolition, clearly been side tracked. Because it is a living document, as are the people it represents, it will continually evolve with our society. It is our society and how we see ourselves, which is why, say, Gay marriage amendments are so contentious (one way or another). Our society is big enough to accomodate many view points, but it ratifies and reflects only those nations that truly define us as Americans.

    Whether, to use the same example, you support Gay marriage, or not, you remain an American.

    2. That all men are not created equally does not mean that we all aspire to the same dream. With all due respect to the Rat, not everybody aspires to be Alexander the Great. In fact, Krupp's big brain and the adaption of steel into modern artillery and machine guns pretty much ended the era in which an individual, on talent alone, could raise an Army and through strength and skill alone defeat his enemies.

    That trend continues as for example, other bg brained people figured out how to strengthen steel, use lasers and other techniques to form titanium, that have made modern jets possible. Still other combined light weight compsites and additives to make stealth technology that have made conventional warfare in general the back yard of America.

    There are examples across the board, as advances in genetics and chemistry have made for larger more productive crop yields. Someone had to market the results of that science, produce it in a comercially viable manner, and transport it to the customer. Shall we talk about advances in port technologies that have made globalozation and integration possible? Our health care systems allow us to live and remian productive longer, as does it, in a bone to the rat, make it easier to treat battlefield casualties.

    We are not all created equally, but no opportunity is equal either, and our difference allow us to exploit those opportunities that are best suited to us. Quite frankly, Bill Gates would be a terrible infantryman. He can nevertheless hire a bunch of goons to keep him and his brain safe. It isn't all about power, and the power of strength is not the same as political power, commercial power, persuasive power, or informational power.

    This forum sorta proves it: Alexander can swing a sword all he wants, and it would give him not a single advantage in this forum.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by kamino View Post
    These ideals must be read in there entirety, it does not mearly stop at "all men are created equal" but goes into saying how they are created equal by being "endowd by there creator with certain unailianble rights that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happieness" (property)

    I think what you say here is supportable simply because the inequality of intelligence and temperament must have been as obvious to the founders as it is to us. There is just no way that they meant that people are born equal in the sense of ability.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    For the record, I consider myself an authoritarian progressive, but I don't square with a lot of modern progressive ideals concerning identity politics and multiculturalism. I'm a staunch nationalist who believes that the ideal of the melting pot requires immigrants and minorities to assimilate into mainstream society and to consider themselves Americans first and foremost.

    "We are American. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance... is futile."

  10. #40
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Do you Believe?

    I agree with everything but the first sentence and part of the second:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

    All men are not created equal, however I do believe they need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law insomuch as race, religion, gender, personal preferences, etc should not be reasons for someone to be incarcerated or harassed by the government.

    I don't not believe that men are endowed with "rights" just by way of being born, and certainly not endowed by any mythical "creator". Rights are granted by those who have power over you, and be easily removed by those who have power over you. Thus, I don't believe that man created government to secure any inalienable rights because I don't believe inalienable rights exist.

    Now, none of this is to say that I disagree with the gist of they were saying. I am glad that MY government treats people equally. I am glad that MY government holds that we have the rights we have. I am glad that MY government is able to be changed by the governed. I agree that the government operates with the consent of the governed, and if and when that ever changes, we need to get rid of our government.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •