Armed Polite Society
October 24, 2020, 01:07:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?  (Read 56641 times)
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #75 on: September 16, 2007, 11:58:09 AM »

I like the vast majority of RP's positions.

Thing is, candidates who poll a level of support smaller than the margin of error are running vanity campaigns.

Also, RP's foreign policy and particularly his talk on Iraq during the debates is a big turn off to the folks who might vote for a Republican.  Not to mention in error. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton
The Rabbi
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,435


"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"


« Reply #76 on: September 16, 2007, 01:03:02 PM »

I like the vast majority of RP's positions.

Thing is, candidates who poll a level of support smaller than the margin of error are running vanity campaigns.

Also, RP's foreign policy and particularly his talk on Iraq during the debates is a big turn off to the folks who might vote for a Republican.  Not to mention in error. 

A lot of us would find a lot to agree about with Ron Paul's positions.  We're all in favor of less government at many levels.  I could think of a dozen gov't programs I'd like to see gone tomorrow.
But that doesn't translate into a viable political campaign, especially when coupled with a doctrinaire approach to foreign policy.

But I admit sandwiches would taste better under a Paul presidency.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.
Mike Irwin
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 33,074


I Am Inimical


« Reply #77 on: September 16, 2007, 03:33:27 PM »


But he's not the guy. He's unelectable, regardless of how you look at it.


And yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85tdRwC37k plus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4 would indicate otherwise.

200 years??  No, not 200 years, more like 40 to 60 years.  I don't remember the founders voting for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS, did I miss something?  And thanks for the ad homenum but I'm neither a teen ager, stoned, or feeble minded.


First, it's ad hominem.

Second, that wasn't an ad hominem attack. Rabbi never claimed that you were any of the above.

Third, the founders/framers didn't vote for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS. However, they put into place a legislative, legal, and executive system that allowed growth into those areas.

Fourth, is anyone else getting REALLY tired of what seems to be the new internet buzzword... ad hominem?

Fifth, this thread is perilously close to becoming the first thread in the political section to be closed. Keep that in mind as you frame your discussion points.
Report to moderator   Logged

Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #78 on: September 16, 2007, 03:56:10 PM »

The electoral college system completely precludes a Ron Paul presidency.  He doesn't appeal to the high population urban areas, who are the deciding factors.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bogie
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,208


Used to be living in Cat Whiz - next, who knows?


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 16, 2007, 03:57:38 PM »

Campers, ever since Kennedy "cheated" by using makeup in his debate against Nixon, television has had a sizable effect.

Remember - dumb people vote too. Which candidate will win American Idol 2008?
 
For 1992, it was the one who played the sax...
 
Same thing in the corp world - if you don't look the part, you don't get the job. Guys who have a chance at the fast track have been known to have hired coaches, to do everything from hair and wardrobe to voice coaching... I'm dead serious. Been there, seen it.

Report to moderator   Logged

Get Your Second Amendment, Political and Fun Stickers Here!
www.stickertramp.com
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #80 on: September 16, 2007, 04:06:50 PM »

Campers, ever since Kennedy "cheated" by using makeup in his debate against Nixon, television has had a sizable effect.

Remember - dumb people vote too. Which candidate will win American Idol 2008?
 
For 1992, it was the one who played the sax...
 
Same thing in the corp world - if you don't look the part, you don't get the job. Guys who have a chance at the fast track have been known to have hired coaches, to do everything from hair and wardrobe to voice coaching... I'm dead serious. Been there, seen it.



I call if 'form over function' and it works every time.  Give people what they expect plus a little more, and you own them.   We are suckers, big time.
Report to moderator   Logged
MechAg94
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 25,354


« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2007, 12:57:38 PM »

I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy.  I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas.  I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all.  Different sets for different people also.

That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.

Nonagression is unnatural.

--Len.

cheesy
This is a classic example of why this thread is frustrating and entertaining to read.  A smart sounding answer that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments made or the purpose of this thread.  Cheesy

I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform.  You should have joined in on the "anarchy" thread a while back.  That statement would fit right in.
Report to moderator   Logged

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #82 on: September 17, 2007, 01:45:18 PM »

I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy.  I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas.  I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all.  Different sets for different people also.

That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.

I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform. 

I'm referring to the entire panorama. Lots of people agree with Ron Paul about Iraq, but they hate his views on socialized medicine--because they believe in forcing others to pay their medical bills. Others support his views on socialized medicine, but hate his position on Iraq. There reasons vary, but they all boil down to endorsing aggressive war, whether it's to oust Saddam, or to impose democracy at gunpoint, or for other reasons. Some agree with him on Iraq and socialized medicine, but hate his views on free trade--because they support the use of force to keep out competition from Mexico, or to shore up their union wages, etc. Most "Christians" hate his views on drug legalization because they are willing to impose their morality on others by force. The AMA hates him because he would weaken their cartel control on medical care. The teachers' union hates him because he would get the federal government out of the education business, opening them up to more competition from charter, private and home schools. Defense contractors hate him because he would put most of them out of a job by using the military only for defense of the US. Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department and force them to get a real job. Tree huggers hate him because he won't forcibly intervene to save the snail darter; gun banners hate him because he wouldn't disarm the people..

Ron Paul's views are absolutely, 100% nonaggressive. OK, 99.5% at least--nobody's perfect. But in a platform for which every plank is based on leaving people alone, taking nothing by force, never using force in any way for personal advantage... there's something for everyone to hate. Just about everyone benefits in some way from aggression, and wants to keep it that way.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Finch
Member
*
Posts: 465


WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2007, 06:10:29 PM »

Quote
Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department

I work for the TSA and look forward to the day that Ron Paul shuts us down.....


But that is just me.
Report to moderator   Logged

Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul
doczinn
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 1,205



« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2007, 06:23:55 PM »

Let me just point out that an insult to a whole group of people (e.g.: "Only x[insert insult here] like y[insert cause here].") is most certainly an ad hominem attack when the opponent is someone who likes y.
Report to moderator   Logged

D. R. ZINN
Michigander
friend
Member
***
Posts: 100



« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2007, 09:35:06 PM »

There is no good reason to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul as long as he is in the race. No good reason.

There are a lot of good excuses, but no good reasons.

All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are more of the same for worse. Ron Paul is change for the better.

JMO of course, because none of us really know what would happen if Ron Paul became President. Although we can all be 99.9% sure what will happen if any of the others become President.
Report to moderator   Logged

What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?
The Rabbi
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,435


"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"


« Reply #86 on: September 17, 2007, 10:58:57 PM »

There is no good reason to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul as long as he is in the race. No good reason.

There are a lot of good excuses, but no good reasons.

All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are more of the same for worse. Ron Paul is change for the better.

JMO of course, because none of us really know what would happen if Ron Paul became President. Although we can all be 99.9% sure what will happen if any of the others become President.

There are 4 pages of good reasons, if you'd bother to read them.  They range from his inherent unelectibility to his positions on foreign policy.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.
MechAg94
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 25,354


« Reply #87 on: September 18, 2007, 12:59:58 AM »

I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy.  I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas.  I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all.  Different sets for different people also.

That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.

I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform. 

I'm referring to the entire panorama. Lots of people agree with Ron Paul about Iraq, but they hate his views on socialized medicine--because they believe in forcing others to pay their medical bills. Others support his views on socialized medicine, but hate his position on Iraq. There reasons vary, but they all boil down to endorsing aggressive war, whether it's to oust Saddam, or to impose democracy at gunpoint, or for other reasons. Some agree with him on Iraq and socialized medicine, but hate his views on free trade--because they support the use of force to keep out competition from Mexico, or to shore up their union wages, etc. Most "Christians" hate his views on drug legalization because they are willing to impose their morality on others by force. The AMA hates him because he would weaken their cartel control on medical care. The teachers' union hates him because he would get the federal government out of the education business, opening them up to more competition from charter, private and home schools. Defense contractors hate him because he would put most of them out of a job by using the military only for defense of the US. Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department and force them to get a real job. Tree huggers hate him because he won't forcibly intervene to save the snail darter; gun banners hate him because he wouldn't disarm the people..

Ron Paul's views are absolutely, 100% nonaggressive. OK, 99.5% at least--nobody's perfect. But in a platform for which every plank is based on leaving people alone, taking nothing by force, never using force in any way for personal advantage... there's something for everyone to hate. Just about everyone benefits in some way from aggression, and wants to keep it that way.

--Len.

I think you are placing hate and aggression where they don't belong.  I don't think our government has expanded to it's present size because of hate.  I think it got that way because of misguided intentions.  Did LBJ create his Great Society legislation out of hate?  I don't think so.  I think it was just misguided good intentions and he did not consider the full consequences of his actions or foolishly thought the consequences could be managed.  A lot of people are very hesitant about legalizing drugs because they worry about drugs destroying the lives of a great deal more people.  Not because they hate anyone.  They just aren't thinking about the issues of freedom of choice and such.  If you think it is due to hate, you are seriously mis-reading people. 

Good intentions applied badly are more dangerous than hate and aggression (at least in a country like ours).


Report to moderator   Logged

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #88 on: September 18, 2007, 01:18:02 AM »

I think you are placing hate and aggression where they don't belong.  I don't think our government has expanded to it's present size because of hate.  I think it got that way because of misguided intentions.

I agree with you 100%. Humans are basically decent people, and if they consider something to be "stealing," for example, they won't do it. The trouble is that most of us sometimes do go ahead and steal, as long as we can rationalize what we're doing. We commit aggression, but usually only when we can convince ourselves that it isn't aggression. For example:

Quote
Did LBJ create his Great Society legislation out of hate?  I don't think so.  I think it was just misguided good intentions and he did not consider the full consequences of his actions...

Agreed. (OK, I do think that LBJ was at least partly motivated by purely selfish motives, but lets ignore that.) His good intentions to "help the poor," etc., blinded him to the fact that he was doing so with stolen money. The end was so appealing that it didn't exactly justify the means so much as distract us from even looking at the means. As a result, he launched a program of systematic theft on a massive scale, but believed the entire time that he was doing something good.

Quote
A lot of people are very hesitant about legalizing drugs because they worry about drugs destroying the lives of a great deal more people.  Not because they hate anyone.  They just aren't thinking about the issues of freedom of choice and such.

Agreed. But the net result is the same: some people oppose Ron Paul because "he'll turn our children into druggies." Others because "he doesn't care about the poor." Others because "he'll let Mexicans steal our jobs." And so on. Everyone involved has, or thinks he has, the purest of motives. What none of them realize is that each of their glittering ideals is founded on force and aggression, and improper means are out of the question even in pursuit of the most lofty goals. In other words, everyone has certain kinds of aggression that he regards as necessary, or even right, and he refuses to renounce or even to admit that it's aggression.

Quote
Good intentions applied badly are more dangerous than hate and aggression (at least in a country like ours).

I'm with you all the way.

If you want to see the hate, though, just pick someone at random, talk about non-aggression, and then point out his sacred cow which involves aggression. You'll experience the hate quick enough. Whether it's welfare, invasive war, farm subsidies, steel tariffs, defense contracts, highway funds, socialized health care, social security or anything else, mention it and watch a human explode like a powder keg.

As an aside, I've had this same conversation on a Christian mailing list. I pointed out that the eighth and tenth commandments absolutely forbid theft, or even coveting--but that we heartily approve coveting and theft in the name of the welfare state. I'd have thought that Bible-reading Christians would be absolutist in their condemnation of theft, but like everyone else... certain kinds of theft aren't theft. Indeed, that's exactly what the state is there for: so you can tell the difference. If the state does it, it isn't theft.  rolleyes

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
GigaBuist
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,345



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 18, 2007, 05:57:50 AM »

Ron Paul is change for the better.
Well, "better" is debatable, but at least it's change.  I'm tired of hearing all about change in every election cycle only to end up with the same level of BS that we had before.

Ron Paul doesn't have to promise change.  If you listen to him speak, or read his writings, it's fairly obvious that we're in for some big changes if he becomes POTUS.
Report to moderator   Logged
MechAg94
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 25,354


« Reply #90 on: September 18, 2007, 08:25:47 AM »

I was listening to Michael Medved's radio show last Friday.  He had a sub doing the show and they were interviewing a democrat.  A candidate I think.  Anyway, this guy came right out and said "I am for limited government".  That caught my attention right there since it is 180 degrees away from most Democrat policies or ideas.  The host asked him about govt health care saying that wasn't very limited govt.  Well, this democrat said that people need health care.  This is a program that can help people so we should do it anyway.  It was obvious that he was willing to sacrifice his "limited govt" stance pretty quick if he came across something he thought was a good thing. 

I think that is where most people fall off the wagon of limited govt.  Their emotions tell them they they have to help the children or something like that and they say to themselves "we can make this one exception".  Only they end up allowing a million exceptions and their emotional thinking failed to see those exceptions were much larger than they thought.  Certainly some people make these decisions with eyes open, but I think that is why most people end up thinking the way they do.  For many it is just a matter of no one has shown them there is a better way or they don't believe them.  For this reason, I like someone like Ron putting his word out about alternatives to the way we are doing things.  It gets at least a few people thinking.  (I still wouldn't vote for him.  Smiley  )

Most of the liberal types that I have been able to talk to exhibit this sort of "exception" type thinking.  They see everything in grays and find it difficult to hold hard stances on principles. 

Len, I think we are saying many of the same things, we just approach it a little differently.  Not a problem as long as you think about who the audience is you are trying to convince.
Report to moderator   Logged

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #91 on: September 18, 2007, 10:46:45 AM »

Most of the liberal types that I have been able to talk to exhibit this sort of "exception" type thinking.  They see everything in grays and find it difficult to hold hard stances on principles. 

That's true, but conservatives do the same. For example, conservatives tend to support enforcement of victimless crime laws.

Quote
Len, I think we are saying many of the same things, we just approach it a little differently.  Not a problem as long as you think about who the audience is you are trying to convince.

Yes, I think you're right.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Euclidean
friend
Member
***
Posts: 293


« Reply #92 on: September 19, 2007, 08:05:23 AM »

Okay I've let this go for a while. 

First I call Dr. Paul that because it's the socially accepted means of addressing a practicing medical doctor.  I realize there are people who are not medical doctors who have PhDs, some of whom use the "Dr." honorific.

The only issue of substance I've really seen reiterated here, over and over again, is the foreign policy stance.  I'll simply address this by quoting Ron Paul himself with a little bolding on my part:

Quote
    "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

~ George Washington

I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations  entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."


Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #93 on: September 19, 2007, 08:24:34 AM »

Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
The Rabbi
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,435


"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"


« Reply #94 on: September 19, 2007, 08:27:17 AM »

Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."

--Len.


Why are you always drawing inappropriate analogies to private persons?  A state is not a person.  There is a distinction, as I hope you learned in a different thread.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #95 on: September 19, 2007, 08:32:57 AM »

Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."

Why are you always drawing inappropriate analogies to private persons?  A state is not a person.  There is a distinction, as I hope you learned in a different thread.

I learned that by your definition, there's nothing wrong with a Holocaust if the masses generally support it. Hopefully nothing gave you the impression that I ever accepted this crazy idea. On the contrary, there is a morality which is higher than any government, and against which a government can be judged as "just" or "unjust," or as "right" or "wrong."

In particular, it's immoral for me to murder innocents--and it's immoral for agents of the state to do the same. Appurtenances of office do not sanctify immoral actions.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
The Rabbi
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,435


"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"


« Reply #96 on: September 19, 2007, 08:35:21 AM »

That of course dodged the question and the whole issue. I didnt really expect you to answer it of course because that would be damaging.

But on that note, where does this "morality" stem from?  Why is this morality you've discovered superior to every other morality out there?  Why is a state obligated to follow it, or even be moral at all?
Report to moderator   Logged

Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #97 on: September 19, 2007, 08:56:30 AM »

That of course dodged the question and the whole issue. I didnt really expect you to answer it of course because that would be damaging.

I answered it: the analogy is not inappropriate. When you call it an "inappropriate analogy," you're begging a question that you haven't begun to settle with argumentation.

Quote
But on that note, where does this "morality" stem from?  Why is this morality you've discovered superior to every other morality out there?  Why is a state obligated to follow it, or even be moral at all?

I've already answered that question with some specificity, although briefly. There are many approaches to the question of morality, because there is of course no such thing as "objective" morality in the sense that the Greeks or Ayn Rand wished there were.

One approach, which I've already mentioned, is to ask where you get the authority to impose your will on me. "You" here refers to whichever agent of force might be trying to coerce me in some way, but would in principle include you specifically if you attempt to assert that I'm obligated to comply with this or that act of coercion. You'll of course cite some figure higher up the chain of authority, and say, "the Mayor," or "Congress," or "the Constitution," or "the President." I will in turn ask where these agents got the authority that they're delegating to you. You will eventually have no recourse but to reply that might makes right, and that if I don't comply I'll be jailed, or deported, or killed. Most people conclude with a lurid and snide reference to what happens to prisoners, like, "Say hello to your new husband 'Bunk Muffin' for me when you get to Sing-Sing."

The second approach, which I've also mentioned, is to point out that your viewpoint divides mankind into predators and prey. There are those who can command, extort, kill, etc., and those who have no choice but to endure these crimes. My viewpoint applies to everyone equally. In raising this point, I hope that your inborn empathy will remind you that you wouldn't like my aggressing against you if might were on my side, and therefore you might ought to extend the same courtesy to others, and expect the same in return. Specifically, you will not condone anyone's acts of initiated aggression, even when you personally are not the victim. (If you were the victim, then I'm sure we can already count on you to squawk.)

The third approach, which I've also mentioned, is the utilitarian one: if you genuinely believe that might makes right, then you leave me no choice but to defend myself against your aggression. I cannot expect civilized behavior of you, because you've already informed me that you have no particular intention of respecting my right to be left alone as long as I'm leaving you alone. If that's the case, then I'd still be happy to convince you--but whether or not I convince you, I will resist you. Since we have no moral common ground, I will not take into account whether you recognize the validity of my position or not.

The utilitarian viewpoint includes other considerations: for example, everyone's wellbeing is maximized in a nonaggressive society (except, by definition, the wellbeing of aggressors, which is only satisfied by depredation). Internal and external conflict as well as oppression are minimized, and economic productivity is maximized. Presumably you'd rather be prosperous, healthy, well-fed and free of fear than the opposite of those things.

Concerning the second approach, which depends on empathy and invokes the principle of reciprocity: I realize that many humans lack empathy in this regard. Conservatives feel oppressed when a liberal is in power and the White House becomes the scene of gay trysts; liberals feel oppressed when the White House hatches corporatist schemes funded by tax dollars. But both usually only wish for a reversal, so they can have their turn imposing their will on the general populace. Few decide to renounce the machinery of oppression itself.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
The Rabbi
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 4,435


"Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"


« Reply #98 on: September 19, 2007, 09:12:39 AM »

I wasn't begging the question.  I demonstrated pretty conclusively that a state is not an individual, and thus subject to different standards.
You still haven't answered it.

You simply obfuscated the other question.  You claim there is some kind of morality that nations are bound by.  I ask where the source of that is.
as for seeing things as divided between aggressor and victim, I'm afraid that seems to be your view.  I certainly don't believe that.
Report to moderator   Logged

Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #99 on: September 19, 2007, 09:35:46 AM »

I wasn't begging the question.  I demonstrated pretty conclusively that a state is not an individual, and thus subject to different standards.

Sorry, no. You didn't even try. You made some appeals to authority, some straw men and some circular arguments--but mostly you just asserted your conclusion over and over again.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!