User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default Here's a question for the US libertarian kiddies

    A future economic collapse caused by totally unchecked greed by bankers in the US leads to chaos and racially aggrivated civil strife, an authoritarian conservative regime emerges in its wake, a cabal of rich libertarians forms an alliance with foreign military might, say for the sake of argument the Chinese, do you support the authoritarian conservatives, the "patriots", or the libertarian's mercenaries forces?

  2. #2
    Junior Member pickledoctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    InTj
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Not in the US, but I'll offer ym insight, for what it's worth.

    I would definitely side with the libertarians. Nationalism means nothing to me, and when other humans have such an inflated ego that they believe they know what is best for everyone (i.e., extreme authoritarianism), I feel compelled to kick things in the face. Not to mention that fiscal conservatism is hard to disconnect from social conservatism (i.e., being backwards - at least, that is my view of things - give me examples of nonreligious and non liberty-limiting social conservatism?)

    As much as violent conflict is harmful to people in general, I don't think inaction would be a viable choice here. Besides, I don't think conservative regimes would like me much, being an intellectual progressive bisexual cynical secular-humanist.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pickledoctopus View Post
    Not in the US, but I'll offer ym insight, for what it's worth.

    I would definitely side with the libertarians. Nationalism means nothing to me, and when other humans have such an inflated ego that they believe they know what is best for everyone (i.e., extreme authoritarianism), I feel compelled to kick things in the face. Not to mention that fiscal conservatism is hard to disconnect from social conservatism (i.e., being backwards - at least, that is my view of things - give me examples of nonreligious and non liberty-limiting social conservatism?)

    As much as violent conflict is harmful to people in general, I don't think inaction would be a viable choice here. Besides, I don't think conservative regimes would like me much, being an intellectual progressive bisexual cynical secular-humanist.
    Maybe you wouldnt matter as much to a political regime as your inflated sense of identity politics suggests, no offence.

    Anyway, the situation I'm describing is not a choice between libertarianism and conservatism in a peaceable and orderly status quo, it is a chaotic and lawless situation, in which people are very liable to endorse authoritarianism because they crave basic law, order and safety, this is what happened in Afghanistan and lead to the rise of the Taliban, who where essentially religious scholars from fundamentalist schools, they appeared the only credible alternative to the perpetual strife of tribal warlords.

    So it is domestic authoritarianism, liable to be conservative in its most basic or instinctive variety, vs. libertarian supported mercenary force/international military intervention.

    I'd need clarification of what "backwards" means, I know you're applying it in a prejorative sense, I dont see it that way, being fairly traditionalist or culturally conservative. I dont think that social or cultural conservatism is necessary religious, it is about vitally important norms and values and their transmission between generations, so that with each generation it is not necessary to learn everything afresh and treating the learning and legacies of the past with due respect so as not to repeat mistakes of the past. Imagine if every time you wanted to watch a new episode of Family Guy you had to rewatch the entire series? Pretty stupid right? Its also about being cautious about innovations or innovative change, given what we know about the oppressive character of some traditions and the pressure to abandon them alone it makes sense to be cautious not to replace one wrong with another or a worse one. That's all basic but I know its not taught any place.

    So far as liberty-limiting, well, sometimes that's not just a good thing but reality, conservatism, particularly political conservatism, has many vices including selfishness, class struggle and elitism, but it originally was most skeptical about and attacked both statism AND individualism as inorganic and artificial. Simple critiques of individual liberty included allusions to language, there is no such thing as an individual language, perhaps baby babble, although that is something which is not useful and is abandoned when babies learn to communicate proper and is antithetical to communication and survival. So if people are social in communication and character that is organic while the alternative conception of individual liberty is an ideological abstraction.

    I hope I dont seem hostile because its nice to have someone new posting on the forum but I think some of what you did post was mistaken

  4. #4
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    [PLACEHOLDER FOR WITTY MACHIAVELLI QUOTE]

    *goes to library*
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  5. #5
    Junior Member pickledoctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    InTj
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Maybe you wouldnt matter as much to a political regime as your inflated sense of identity politics suggests, no offence.
    You have a good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Anyway, the situation I'm describing is not a choice between libertarianism and conservatism in a peaceable and orderly status quo, it is a chaotic and lawless situation, in which people are very liable to endorse authoritarianism because they crave basic law, order and safety, this is what happened in Afghanistan and lead to the rise of the Taliban, who where essentially religious scholars from fundamentalist schools, they appeared the only credible alternative to the perpetual strife of tribal warlords.

    So it is domestic authoritarianism, liable to be conservative in its most basic or instinctive variety, vs. libertarian supported mercenary force/international military intervention.
    I see. I'll have to think about it some more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'd need clarification of what "backwards" means, I know you're applying it in a prejorative sense, I dont see it that way, being fairly traditionalist or culturally conservative. I dont think that social or cultural conservatism is necessary religious, it is about vitally important norms and values and their transmission between generations, so that with each generation it is not necessary to learn everything afresh and treating the learning and legacies of the past with due respect so as not to repeat mistakes of the past. Imagine if every time you wanted to watch a new episode of Family Guy you had to rewatch the entire series? Pretty stupid right? Its also about being cautious about innovations or innovative change, given what we know about the oppressive character of some traditions and the pressure to abandon them alone it makes sense to be cautious not to replace one wrong with another or a worse one. That's all basic but I know its not taught any place.

    So far as liberty-limiting, well, sometimes that's not just a good thing but reality, conservatism, particularly political conservatism, has many vices including selfishness, class struggle and elitism, but it originally was most skeptical about and attacked both statism AND individualism as inorganic and artificial. Simple critiques of individual liberty included allusions to language, there is no such thing as an individual language, perhaps baby babble, although that is something which is not useful and is abandoned when babies learn to communicate proper and is antithetical to communication and survival. So if people are social in communication and character that is organic while the alternative conception of individual liberty is an ideological abstraction.

    I hope I dont seem hostile because its nice to have someone new posting on the forum but I think some of what you did post was mistaken
    There's no problem with disagreement, that's what means we can have a discussion!

    Well, I have an unusual contempt for the terms ''conservative'' and ''liberal'' that I believe tainted my post. I have been too exposed to ''conservative'' being associated to religious indoctrination and limitation of individual liberties, ''liberal'' being associated to a basic awareness of human rights. I do not consider lack of homophobia and support for equality of same-sex unions ''liberal''. I consider it to being aware that everyone deserves the same opportunities and rights to pursue happiness as they so desire. As you can probably tell, I am not very religious, at least in the ''Bible Belt'' sense.

    Self-analysis prompted by your post reveals that the terms ''conservative'' and ''liberal'' are heavily connotative for me, and I dislike associating with either of them. The fact that you only used ''conservative'' in your OP means that I was biased from the beginning and may have misunderstood the problem.

    As for the principle of relying on the past to avoid mistakes, and avoiding having to ''learn everything afresh'', I have to disagree and maybe hint at a twinge of idealism in your statement . Isn't the usual course of action in adolescence to review the values your parents attempted to instill in you, one by one, and forming an individual sense of morality and value, yourself? I believe that is what goes on during the so-called ''indentity crisis''. Though avoiding past mistakes is a good tip, and I believe I have used it much more than some of my contemporary young adults... tee-hee.

    On the point of being cautious of abandoning current ideas for new ones, I will advance that this is simply a function of rationality that not everyone has access to. As an xNTx, I'm sure you understand that you should always ensure your choices are reasonably efficient. If the current system works best, why change it? Agreed, many people abandon ideas simply for the sake of change, but that is an appeal to emotion - as well as inflexibly maintaining the same ideas, which procures comfort for some.

    I agree that conservatism at heart is a preference for what you detailed over other options, but I think it has been deformed, in our day, to mean an inflexible over-reliance on ideas of the past, along with a difficulty considering new ideas, whereas ''liberalism'' seems to be the voice of reason.

    I'm speaking primarily about the US here, keep that in mind - up here in Quebec, society as a whole is very left-leaning in ideology, to where it has become also inflexible to new ideas... no side is the better one, in my opinion.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pickledoctopus View Post
    Well, I have an unusual contempt for the terms ''conservative'' and ''liberal'' that I believe tainted my post. I have been too exposed to ''conservative'' being associated to religious indoctrination and limitation of individual liberties, ''liberal'' being associated to a basic awareness of human rights. I do not consider lack of homophobia and support for equality of same-sex unions ''liberal''. I consider it to being aware that everyone deserves the same opportunities and rights to pursue happiness as they so desire. As you can probably tell, I am not very religious, at least in the ''Bible Belt'' sense.
    I've been over that particular topic a lot, both on this forum and in person, the gut reaction to my views is one of condemning me as a bigot so I'll not venture to outline them all in total again but suffice to say that I dont endorse the whole "equality as uniformity" idea at the heart of so called same sex "marriage", I dont consider homophobia to be synomynous with finding the idea objectionable and, while it is usually articulated by religious people who find it sacreligious, I think objections can be made on purely rational political, cultural and sociological reasons.

    On the point of being cautious of abandoning current ideas for new ones, I will advance that this is simply a function of rationality that not everyone has access to. As an xNTx, I'm sure you understand that you should always ensure your choices are reasonably efficient. If the current system works best, why change it? Agreed, many people abandon ideas simply for the sake of change, but that is an appeal to emotion - as well as inflexibly maintaining the same ideas, which procures comfort for some.
    Simply because some people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, ie procuring comfort, does not mean it ceases to be the right thing.

    If everyone has access to rationality and abandoning traditions is rational then why did tradition arise in the first place? What function could it serve? If it where irrational and obviously so as you suggest I struggle to see how it could even be in the first place. There are conservatives, I accept the negative connotations associated with the word and share some of that prejudice (which in itself is in some way a vindication of some of Burkes ideas in the first place), such as Bagehot (spelling) which suggest that reflection needs to be developed in order that innovations can be incorporated when they prove effacious or are necessitated. The pragmatic streak of many early conservatives is entirely lacking in the militancy of both fiscal and nationalist conservatives in places like the US.

    I agree that conservatism at heart is a preference for what you detailed over other options, but I think it has been deformed, in our day, to mean an inflexible over-reliance on ideas of the past, along with a difficulty considering new ideas, whereas ''liberalism'' seems to be the voice of reason.

    I'm speaking primarily about the US here, keep that in mind - up here in Quebec, society as a whole is very left-leaning in ideology, to where it has become also inflexible to new ideas... no side is the better one, in my opinion.
    I dont think there is such a thing as over reliance on ideas of the past, if ideas have survived and proven themselves, stood the test of time and cycle of intergenerational adoption and adaptation which you mentioned its only proper to rely on them in preference to hopes and abstract, theoretical untested reason. Practical reason has much more to recommend itself instead.

  7. #7
    Junior Member pickledoctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    InTj
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've been over that particular topic a lot, both on this forum and in person, the gut reaction to my views is one of condemning me as a bigot so I'll not venture to outline them all in total again but suffice to say that I dont endorse the whole "equality as uniformity" idea at the heart of so called same sex "marriage", I dont consider homophobia to be synomynous with finding the idea objectionable and, while it is usually articulated by religious people who find it sacreligious, I think objections can be made on purely rational political, cultural and sociological reasons.
    If you mean "marriage" in the sense of the purely Christian sacrament, I couldn't find any arguments against not wanting to perform them - religious institutions are essentially private, and they are free to offer whatever services they please, to who they please. The problem is that separation of Church and State is not applied correctly in the US. Private religion starts affecting public institutions.

    However, I do not see why same-sex couples should not be granted the same privileges as heterosexual couples under law. If you want to share your views on the topic, might I suggest a PM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If everyone has access to rationality and abandoning traditions is rational then why did tradition arise in the first place? What function could it serve? If it where irrational and obviously so as you suggest I struggle to see how it could even be in the first place. There are conservatives, I accept the negative connotations associated with the word and share some of that prejudice (which in itself is in some way a vindication of some of Burkes ideas in the first place), such as Bagehot (spelling) which suggest that reflection needs to be developed in order that innovations can be incorporated when they prove effacious or are necessitated. The pragmatic streak of many early conservatives is entirely lacking in the militancy of both fiscal and nationalist conservatives in places like the US.
    Human society is far from being completely rational... known ideas are very comfortable, even if they are not the most efficient at getting things done. I see traditions primarily as a social identifier, that allows an individual to proclaim his belonging to a group and reinforce it, whether it be a nation, a club, a family, etc. etc. Personally, I am detached and distant from the desire to belong to groups, and so I consider ideas of al kinds in a very critical lens, even those I was taught as a child.

    I gather you aren't very keen on those who call themselves "conservatives" in the US... am I correct? If yes,t he feeling is shared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think there is such a thing as over reliance on ideas of the past, if ideas have survived and proven themselves, stood the test of time and cycle of intergenerational adoption and adaptation which you mentioned its only proper to rely on them in preference to hopes and abstract, theoretical untested reason. Practical reason has much more to recommend itself instead.
    That kind of reliance on experience above all seems, in my limited understanding, to be a Sensor trait. Whatever, that's irrelevant.

    If the old ideas should always given preference compared to new theories, were Mendel - Newton - Einstein using a flawed way of thinking? There needs to be a willingness to take risks, to venture out into the unknown, to abandon the old completely for the sake of experiencing the new, in order for there to be true advancement and evolution. If new ideas that only exist on paper are rejected solely because of their novelty, progress is virtually halted.

    Granted, not having a fixed point of reference and never "settling" on one model or idea is equally nefarious, as it promotes instability. The most efficient way of proceeding seems to be somewhere between these two points.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pickledoctopus View Post
    If you mean "marriage" in the sense of the purely Christian sacrament, I couldn't find any arguments against not wanting to perform them - religious institutions are essentially private, and they are free to offer whatever services they please, to who they please. The problem is that separation of Church and State is not applied correctly in the US. Private religion starts affecting public institutions.

    However, I do not see why same-sex couples should not be granted the same privileges as heterosexual couples under law. If you want to share your views on the topic, might I suggest a PM?
    Its not that I dont want to share my views its simply that I've been over this and its well trod ground.

    I understand entirely how someone who is working from a secularist base may believe that sancting same sex "marriage" is an upwards and progressive move from religiously defined norms, values, labels but I'm inclined to believe that if you are not operating from that base, with those sets of psychological filters, you could not consider redefining marriage for all, including the vast majority of heterosexual individuals, a progressive move.

    In the liberal tradition there is a great deal of emphasis placed upon fairness contra elitism or exclusivity, most of the same sex "marriage" debate is couched in these terms in a pretty unsophisticated and emotive way. However while liberals will, rightly I would say, attack an economic stratification, structuration and norms which benefits a 1% of the population they argue for changes in the definition of marriage which would have exactly that effect, if it would even have the desired benefits.

    Human society is far from being completely rational... known ideas are very comfortable, even if they are not the most efficient at getting things done. I see traditions primarily as a social identifier, that allows an individual to proclaim his belonging to a group and reinforce it, whether it be a nation, a club, a family, etc. etc. Personally, I am detached and distant from the desire to belong to groups, and so I consider ideas of al kinds in a very critical lens, even those I was taught as a child.
    Which is fine in theory, almost a rite of passage, but at what point does saying so or thinking so just become conformism with contemporaneous or popular opinions?

    Take the example of same sex marriage, most of the time when that debate (or dispute more readily described) is articulated people seek to draw up or frame the discussion in terms of ativistic or backward, emotive religion vs. modern, inclusive and rational but where is the critical perspective in all that? Its very frustrating when individuals, with only individual consequences, become defensive rather than reflective about behaviour which impacts on others which is necessarily a small circle of people being an individual in question, it is much more frustrating when it is an entire population of politically active individuals seeking to exercise power.

    The thing about the social identifier definition of tradition is that it is derivative from modern identity politics, you never have an argument framed like that when it is something technical like discussing the best way to inflate a tire, plumb a leak or heat a house, while social and political questions it will be argued are distinctly different, and perhaps they are, I do think there is an aspect of tradition and social knowledge which is technical and not treated as such because it does not seem to fit with well meant intentions.

    I gather you aren't very keen on those who call themselves "conservatives" in the US... am I correct? If yes,t he feeling is shared.
    I consider most people who define themselves as conservatives, especially politicians and activists or agitators as being in something similar to a marxist vanguard long after it became clear that the state wasnt whethering away and that all the hopes and promises of revolutionary terror or power struggle were bunk. There's political lying, there's basic dishonesty, with themselves as well as with others, and like libertarians its all about enlisting the support of the powerless in safe guarding the prosperous, and their managerial elites.


    That kind of reliance on experience above all seems, in my limited understanding, to be a Sensor trait. Whatever, that's irrelevant.

    If the old ideas should always given preference compared to new theories, were Mendel - Newton - Einstein using a flawed way of thinking? There needs to be a willingness to take risks, to venture out into the unknown, to abandon the old completely for the sake of experiencing the new, in order for there to be true advancement and evolution. If new ideas that only exist on paper are rejected solely because of their novelty, progress is virtually halted.

    Granted, not having a fixed point of reference and never "settling" on one model or idea is equally nefarious, as it promotes instability. The most efficient way of proceeding seems to be somewhere between these two points.
    Not if the experience has been studied and entered into the political and sociological discourse, then it would be NT. Anyway.

    Newtonian and Esteinian examples have any relevence when discussing social science as opposed to physics and the natural or hard sciences? It seems like apples and oranges to me. Its the same as comparing same sex aggitation to the struggles against racism. The perils of progressive movements outweigh the pluses a lot of the time, at least in the realm of culture and I didnt suggest I was a fiscal conservative, which I'm not.

    I think that if someone is a progressive they should have an idea of where their final goal or destination is rather than simply an impluse or compulsion to move and change which is what I see among a lot of perpetual agitators which means it is unsurprising when one battle seems to be concluded that they're just waiting on the next.

  9. #9
    Junior Member pickledoctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    MBTI
    InTj
    Posts
    25

    Default

    I'll forego the huge quotes since I think much of what you said points to a few things...

    Change for the sake of change isn't a very "thought-out" way of proceeding. I don't think you have much convincing to do there. Much of what you say points to this. I understand. I don't adhere to this manner of thinking, and much of your disagreement with the term "progressive" stems from its previously described connotation. I think we're just exchanging the same viewpoint but arguing semantics. I think we both agree that it is foolish to change for the sake of changing, or keep for for the sake of keeping. We both have a certain dissatisfaction with the current political system as it is because of that.

    On the topic of same-sex marriage, I think the analogy with the 1% is a bit dodgy. Yes, the distribution of wealth is attacked because it benefits a small segment of the population, but also because the large majority of the population has very limited access to that wealth and is thus restricted in its choices and general well-being, regardless of work or personal merit.

    When it comes to granting same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law (again, separate from whatever rites churches wish to perform), I do not perceive the same inequality. In the event that same-sex unions are signed into law on a national basis, the majority of couples (heterosexual) will not find their rights being affected, their choices and well-being limited, or their access to legal procedures restricted. The 1% isn't controlling a majority of a given resource and rendering the system "unbalanced" - it rather wishes to access the same services and legal procedures as the majority. Marriage licences aren't a resource.

    The problem comes when we ask ourselves if same-sex couples are equal to heterosexual couples in the context of modern society. If we discriminate based on the ability to reproduce without the aid of a third party, we would run into problems considering the cases of heterosexual couples that are infertile. In our industrialized society, a union represents a financial, social and emotional commitment without an obligation to reproduce. Regardless of gender, two consenting and functioning adults are capable of making that commitment, towards another consenting, functioning adult, regardless of gender. "Consenting, functioning adult" is where the line is drawn; an animal obviously doesn't satisfy these criteria. In this regard, same and opposite -sex couples are equal.

    Lastly, I think you perceive the altering of the definition of a "couple" as having a negative impact on heterosexual couples, or having a negative impact on society in general. Could you give any examples of what you think these effects could be? Furthermore, replacing "one man + woman" with "two consenting adults, regardless of gender" does not restrict or abolish any existing rights or anyone's current access to services. The definition simply becomes more inclusive - a reasonable heterosexual couple will not suddenly feel a change in their relationship, as if their status is now diminished or reduced. It is a bit like adding a few more fruits to a fruit basket - the existing fruit's existence and digestibility is not suddenly hampered by the inclusion of other fruits.

    Granted, some people are unsettled by homosexuality. In a larger sense, I think society would be more just if these individuals (whose population is decreasing, given the slow paradigm shift being experienced across much of the US) would change their ideas. Again, the benefit of a more inclusive and more accepting society outweighs the effort required by these individuals to change their way of thought. You act as if the notion that ideas will need to change overrules the new ideas that would come in their place outright.

    "Its the same as comparing same sex aggitation to the struggles against racism."

    Granted, the civil rights movement was much more sweeping and was based on more harmful discriminatory practices, but the principles between these two movements remain the same: a minority if the population does not have access to the same rights and services, and the solution is to amend the laws to be more inclusive, without diminishing the access to services and rights of the majority.

    On my Newton/Einstein example, I suggest this: why is ti necessarily bad to treat social sciences with the same amount of logic and rationality as the "hard" sciences? Rationality does not omit feeling and and values from its process, it merely attempts to not to be blinded by them.

    Finally, "The perils of progressive movements outweigh the pluses a lot of the time"

    Could you elaborate further, possibly giving examples of the perils of the civil rights movement and the LGBTQ movement, which are at the forefront of our discussions?

  10. #10
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    A future economic collapse caused by totally unchecked greed by bankers in the US (Already happened, underleads to chaos and racially aggrivated civil strife, an authoritarian conservative regime emerges in its wake, a cabal of rich libertarians forms an alliance with foreign military might, say for the sake of argument the Chinese, do you support the authoritarian conservatives, the "patriots", or the libertarian's mercenaries forces?
    Wow, you really are obsessed with American libertarians. You have your own authoritarian regime to worry about, right?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Question for the Extraverted Sensors here
    By tinker683 in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-17-2011, 04:09 PM
  2. [INFP] A Question for the INFPs
    By sonata in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 01:06 PM
  3. [MBTItm] A Question For The Domiant Type At This Forum?
    By "?" in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-03-2007, 10:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO