This is an important topic
In this clip, I discuss the growing trend of ideological and philosophical movement focusing almost exclusively on "ideas" and "principles" in what I believe is a way to cop out of doing the difficult thinking of figuring out policy.
I know there are lots of anarchy/libertarian minded people on Steemit and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my analysis.
This is not left or ring wing
The truth is that people on all sides of the political spectrum can miss the forest for the trees, or the trees for the forest as the expression might sometimes apply, and this is a critique of a movement that need not be ideologically cornered on the political spectrum.
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
After watching your vlog, Anyone can come up with ideas that can suit their beliefs and ideologies.
Principle is sort of law that measure by your aptitude to do good even for you.
Unfortunately this world does not come to favor principles, that is why they need them to pass law all the time in favor of their way they want us to live.
I want to blame imperfection on this matter. Selfish too. I will not forget greed.
Keep on steemin'
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You've identified some interesting examples of extreme ideological thinking here. However, it seems to me that your reasoning may simply be a form of mental gymnastics which allows you to justify your support for Hillary Clinton and other neo-liberal candidates who have absolutely no principles whatsoever - guided by corporatism. Over and over they pound away at how complex the process of lawmaking is, chipping away at freedoms in exchange for safety, ceding ground to corporatism, to the point where they will tell you with a straight face that the laws that I personally grew up with are not realistic - they are unattainable, and to propose otherwise makes me a simpleton who does not grasp the "complexity" of the issues. Far too often the phrase "real world" is the platitude of the sell-out. It's a catch phrase they use to gaslight people. We're too simplistic to realize why we must have a corporate hybrid form of insurance instead of the single payer system that most of the rest of the civilized world already has. Oh yeah, and we're also too simplistic to understand why at the same time we need to be bombing seven different countries all without the consent of Congress. No Dave, sometimes principles actually matter and you need to stick to them. Of course there are matters of policy which require some judgment and walking the line between them, but more often than not politicians exploit those "conflicts of principle" in order to get away with doing things for the interest of their donors instead of acting on behalf of their constituents.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My support for Hillary Clinton? I voted for Bernie. I think you are attributing political motivations where they may not exist.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Is it possible you've created a false dichotomy here? Or maybe you're confusing positive rights and negative rights?
When I say someone has the right to life and property, I mean they have the right to obtain those things without someone else blocking them, assuming their actions to obtain them didn't violate the non-aggression principle. These are negative rights. More on that here.
When you talk about "right to life" you seem to imply to me it's a positive right in that others have a duty to guarantee some amount of life to you. That creates conflicts and slippery slopes. Safety and physical protection is implied, but then we can extend it to food, water, clothing, shelter, healthcare... maybe even transportation? Very quickly (to me) it becomes obvious that these "rights" are now opposing duties on others which infringes on their liberties. I'm all for the freedom of movement (a negative right), but I can't condone forcing someone else to give me a ride.
The false dichotomy you mention, I think, relates to a government monopoly on force represented as the police force as being the only way someone can maintain their negative right to life. Detroit Threat Management is an example of alternative solutions which, to me, are far more effective and completely voluntary.
So if we're going to stop at negative rights, what next? Many progressives think we'll just have a terrible world with individuals dying in the streets or marauders raping and pillaging. This, to me, is silly. Steven Pinker's work shows how the world is getting better and safer. He attributes it in large part to the Hobbesian Leviathan, but I think he under-values the role of our increasing circle of empathy as a species. Just as the novel increased our awareness and connectedness, the Internet is doing the same thing. Human beings (according to ideas like non-violent communication, NVC) love to meet the needs of others. Violence is just a tragic expression of an unmet need. If we had better mechanisms in place (I'd argue voluntary ones), then I think we'd see an much greater increase in human well-being and we could all take personal responsibility caring for and protecting those who can't care for or protect themselves. This isn't utopian dream thinking or over-simplification. To me, it's grounded in how human beings actually and naturally function when removed from the myth of authority.
I hesitate to share all these views with you as I perceive you disagree agree strongly with some of them, and I don't wish to alienate you or your audience. I find you to be an intelligent, rational person who I enjoy interacting with, so I think we could have a lot of fun talking through these details more to better understand each other and ourselves. Even if we disagree, I think we can learn and benefit from continued dialogue.
The challenge, I think, is many push in one direction (i.e. more government welfare programs) which others belief actually makes the problems which are supposedly being solved by such programs worse. That creates a lot of conflict when one group says "We need more X!" and the other group says, "Don't you see X is actually contributing to the very problem you claim to care about!?!" That's what many conversations between those who support government and those who don't boil down to. The key, I think, is to press through that uncomfortable surface layer and dig deeper into what most people in these camps actually want: an increase in human well-being. The more we can measure and understand that, the more we can (hopefully) start to agree on what works, what doesn't, and what has unintended consequences.
I put some thoughts down a while back on how to improve the world from my perspective. I'm curious if you have something similar I could read? I do love talking to people who actually care about this stuff. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
While I recognize and have studied the difference between positive and negative rights, I do not believe that the commentary is significantly altered by reinterpreting the right to life as positive vs negative.
In fact, it's not even really a commentary about any PARTICULAR right, but more about the sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism that has surfaced among a contingent of the internet
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I appreciate the sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism critique, but I also think it's a trap we can fall into when we don't agree with something or fully understand it well enough to steel-man the argument we're critiquing.
I actually do believe voluntaryism principles can and do work in the real world, and I have evidence I've explored to support my position. Holding to principles which actually increase well-being in the world, to me, is not irrational pseudo-intellectualism, but real, pragmatic, useful philosophy which has historically improved the world as we move from one paradigm to another. Going from the divine right of kings to representational democracy probably seemed crazy at some point also. I imagine a future where going from representational democracy to a voluntaryist society with no rulers and self-ownership may not seem so crazy as it does now.
The example rights you gave, to me, exposed a potential flaw in the criticism. From a certain framework ("We need police in order to be safe..."), the arguments that don't involve police can seem irrational, overly simplistic, etc. I think it may more be a case of a completely different frame of reference which is what removing the myth of authority is all about.
I also think talking this stuff through is really valuable and important so people who disagree can be understand each other and those who are undecided can see multiple sides well argued.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree but to be more precise. The needs of each people is based on geography, culture, and age. A need of an infant may be similar to the great elders that depends on caretakers but a teenager would want whatever their 💓 desires, same as the midlife crisis folks, etc, etc. Now add religious preference and ambitions of each into the mix.......well, it starts to appear chaotic but I've seen massive family units thrive under 1 roof but rare will they marry outside races which comes with additional respect of other cultural practices, or conflict will arise but if people really love each other....... all's well and people will choose correctly how to live one's life. Once we elect diplomatic world leaders and not secret society members, it will begin. Love is the key
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent question and way of putting it.
I don't think police really protect the right to life as much as they protect policy or "laws" of a whole lot of other things people don't necessarily want or need. Police officer seems to sound like Policy enforcer for a reason. Very rarely does a cop stop a murder before it happens. They show up after the murder to find the killer, but they did not protect the victims life. There are, of course, other scenarios where they might be able to protect life, but if there were no police force through taxation, there may be another form of protection that can arise that hasn't even been thought of yet. I think also that people having the right to life is not the same as people having the right to have their life protected by a group of people. Life is not fair, ever. If you can't afford to pay for your "protection insurance" then it's up to you to take steps to protect yourself in other ways. This is no different than if you can't afford your rent, you're going to get evicted and you'll have to find somewhere else to sleep. Forcing everyone else at gunpoint to pay higher insurance because some people can't afford it is not right.
Obviously, there are all kinds of situations and not everything can be thought of prior to it happening. This is also the case right now even with taxation. Something bad happens nobody saw coming and BAM, there's another law put out to restrict everyone else's freedom at gunpoint to prevent it from happening again. That's not a solution to the problem, that's a band-aid solution to all problems.
You are right, though. A lot of the time people are very set on their principles and haven't thought of the solutions to the problems that would arise from obtaining those principles. Complaining about something without having a solution is called whining. But, a lot of people would probably also realize that they aren't going to be able to think of every problem right away. To implement those two principles of life and property, things have to change the way they are first, and the problems that start to arise from that change will need to be solved as they occur without infringing on those two rights. Taxing everyone IS the problem right now and treating everyone like free human beings by respecting those two rights IS the solution to that problem. What comes after that will be dealt with as it happens. If society had been doing this sooner, we could have had it all sorted out by now and we could be moving on.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't disagree with you but think there is some descent into semantics here as well
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay? What don't you agree with exactly?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I consider myself libertarianish and I focus almost exclusively on policy and the application of moral principles. The thing is without principles you're just appealing to expediency and self-interest, and it's not just true of politics. Science relies on universal principles. Psychology, psychiatry, and medical practices are bound by universal ethical principles such as informed consent, beneficence, and confidentiality. Even the hard sciences rely on certain universal principles such as the law of parsimony and falsifiability. Anyone making empirical or ethical claims, which is inevitable in politics, has to start with a certain set of assumptions and first principles.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@chirieleison/the-necessity-of-being-guided-by-princples
You also don't need to tax people's wages to fund public services like police. A land value tax would be much more efficient in generating revenue.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very good post
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm just here to tell you how offended I was by your post.
Just kidding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Some good points made. People looking for easy solutions to any problem aren't likely to find it. Still, it's good to understand not just what your principles are, but why those principles are important to you/for society. Those principles will inform your policy opinions, so better to have a solid base of understanding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit