Political Party Rationalization, Least Harm and the National Debt

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Hoaxster, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    Political Parties rely on blind following by its followers even though most of the policies and positions are immoral and against the natural laws of humanity. Yet people justify whatever comes down the line. I call it "rationalization" and my observations is that people will rationalize any frickin' thing they want to.
    So how does a moral person live in a world of political misfeasance?

    I compartmentalize:
    A) I try to live and think within a moral construct which is based on the libertarian moral of do unto others as you would want them to do to you. That is, I leave them alone and respect their freedoms.
    B) I live in an imperfect world where people are basically selfish and evil so I make choices based on true libertarian ideas with the realization that I will make a bad choice but is less-worse than the alternative choice.

    Because of the said (and sad) realization of the basic immorality of humans, I tend to go with the real-world solution that is going to infringe the least on mine and other peoples natural rights including obtained wealth and earned income.
    That generally means choosing a Republican solution over a Democrat solution because those are the only choices I have.
    My desire to "live within a moral construct" keeps me from associating with or accepting either Party (or the Libertarian Party either for that matter).

    It is really hard to choose between the Dems and Pubs because they are so much alike but one thing that seems fundamentally obvious to me is making a choice based on whether it will increase the National Government debt. If I accepted responsibility for the actions of my generation (which I do not), I would be ashamed of what is being done to the US by increasing the National debt.

    I understand the Pubs are just as much the cause for the current National debt as the Dems are so I make real-life choices based on choices that would seem to reduce the National debt over time.
  2. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    One down, the rest of humanity to go.
  3. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    I seriously doubt if I changed you or your morality. :innocent:
  4. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    I meant you, not me.
  5. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    As pathetic a thought as my attempt at humor it seems.
  6. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Close, but no
  7. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

    By "bad choice", you are speaking of voting for a politician? Or is not voting altogether a possible bad choice?

    If voting is a "God-given right", may it also be a "God-given wrong"? :eek:

  8. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    All of the above plus a whole lot more.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Among other things, voting is a Chinese finger trap.

    Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his masterwork, "On War" is famous for his saying "War is politics by other means" and thus I've always seen voting as "warfare by other politics."

    It is conquest without open bloodshed but it can still have lives destroyed and people devastated in it's wake.
  10. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Are the actions of Nelson Mandela and MLK Jr. also warfare?
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  12. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    I thought you would say so. You are right. I will never embrace libertarian ideas. Force is a necessary fact. Never has a society existed in which it has not been such and nothing I see suggests that we've evolved beyond that.
  13. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    So you are not one to embrace an ideal idea and reconcile yourself to the realities of the world?
    I know a lot of conservatives like that ... in fact, I am beginning to believe you are one.
  14. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    "...reconcile yourself to the realities of the world?"
    To the contrary. Without force, segregation remains the "reality of the world". Without force, Mandela takes an offer, gains his release, and Apartheid continues. There is no waiting for people simply to relinquish their advantage for the good of all. Fred Smith isn't giving up the RLA and the Teamsters won't disband. You aren't the first to call me a conservative but I just don't see it.
  15. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    conservative - a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

    It appears you want to hold onto the "way it always has been".
    It's no problem - it's just an idea anyway.
  16. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Could very well be...or I haven't been shown there is another way. I see alot of theory about how things could be or even should be but nothing about how it is or how it will come to be. Those details are noticeably lacking.
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Without force, would there be segregation at all? If white man is so naturally drawn to segregation, why was a law (force and compulsion) mandating it even necessary? African Americans at the time made up so little of the population in the first place, had whites just naturally turned theirs backs on African Americans as you seem to think we would, the natural order itself would be a racist dream. Thus why would any segregation law even be needed in the first place?

    When I see posts from Island and yourself at times, I wonder just where you 2 live and what kind of people you surround yourselves with. As a kid I did grow up at the tail end of the segregated south. I remember segregated schools, movies theaters, etc. and even though these institutions and establishments were segregated, the attitudes of average people, especially working class were not so easily pigeonholed.

    You might argue why did they not do something about it and yes that could be said but then you would have someone like yourself telling them that this is the way it is and we need this or otherwise bad things will happen. We have to trust those in power who are smarter that we and will save us from hurting ourselves. Myths and stories can be told and used in many different ways but always to achieve the same thing and that is to retain power at the top. When the myth of segregation doesn't work, new myths will be created and told but always to maintain the same outcome. Keep power at the top.

    South African Apartheid was also a top down construct made so by a matter of law and not a result of natural order. We can both show each other racist social structures that we both agree are wrong but show me a racist social structure that naturally occurred without the use of mandatory and compulsory law.

    And BTW, don't confuse racism with culturalism or xenophobia and jingoism. Most people who might be judged racists are in fact not but are culturalists harboring xenophobic and jingoist traits driven by fear fed to them. The recent hysteria over the knockout events when if you just consider the statistical odds of being a victim, you're more likely to be injured in a car wreck and I see no hysteria about that potential. In fact, just the opposite.

    As to Mandela taking an offer so to speak, investigative international journalist John Pilger might argue that point. I found as I read Pilger talking on Mandela's and the ANC's deal with the devil, I had to wonder about the "deals with the devil" as we ended our own form of apartheid. Malcolm X may not have been all wrong in his own criticisms of the day. And neither were Huey Newton and Bobby Seals either. And did you ever wonder why former Barry Goldwater speech writer turned libertarian/anarchist Karl Hess, a white guy, would be welcomed in and allowed to run in Black Panther circles? Hmmmmm!

    Not sure where the Fred Smith/Teamsters comment fits in especially with Hoax but what the heck.

    Not that UPS doesn't do the same or similar to serve their interests but Fred Smith of today isn't possible at all if not for the State (monopoly of force). Neither is UPS for that matter. "We're all socialists now!" There is a reason Fred, not unlike many others spend enormous amounts of money on gov't because the fact is there is a huge return on investment. They can also use the state to externalize costs but that's for another thread. If not, they'd use their money elsewhere.

    Both Fred and UPS enjoy a type cartel existence in that they've achieve some manner of regulatory capture which they can use to keep out new competition while screaming about each other along with the Post Office. While they may scream about some new regulation or regulatory regime, it's mostly show on the order of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch. Something about "please don't throw me in" just doesn't come across as genuine anymore for me.

    And since you threw the Fred Smith thingy out there, I'll answer here your last comment in the libertarian 101 thread in regards to oligarchic corporations to save space and being it kinda applies with Big Freddie and Da Boyz.

    Under the current society model, yes you are correct. Occupy proves that point as does protests of globalism and the trade agreements that build a dominate global economic model. Any protests are not only just immediately crushed but there is growing evidence of acts by planted provocateurs that then get huge media coverage which then turn the masses against legit protest and the rest is history as they say.

    Now let's address something first right out of the box. Does a corporation exist in and of itself in nature or does it take an external act to allow it's creation? In Black's Law 2nd edition, under the article, "What Is Corporation?" we find the following in the first sentence.

    Corporations with the immunities and privileges granted them are, according to the respected Black's Law, created by an action of the state itself. With no formal state, how would an oligarchic corporation with it powers and privileges even exist? Corporations as we know them today do not exist in the natural market or in other words, in the state of nature under natural law.

    Not to say a few evil men or women couldn't conspire together but they wouldn't enjoy the privilege under the cloak of law that people would accept as legit. Limited liability of creating a type strawman, that's what a corporation is, and transferring all liability upon would not exist as it does now. And if your theory of oligarchic corporations were true, why did all the oligarchic money on election day go to either President Obama or his challenger Romney instead of for example all being dumped in Ron Paul's pockets? If oligarchic corporations would be so "unlimited" and "thrive" without question, why isn't the movement towards stateless society swimming in corp. money and also being portrayed as societal darlings by the media elites and their propaganda forces instead of dark evil in the night?

    As my avatar shows, "The system isn't broken, it was built this way!"

    or the other question,

    "If Mega Corporations would benefit from libertarianism, why don't Mega Corporations support libertarianism?"