Fe politics versus Fi politics

[elfinchilde]

I did not agree to have money deducted from my monthly paycheck at work.
I did not agree to be forced to go to school by punishment of imprisonment.
I did not agree to have my right to free will and judgment suspended until I am 18/21.

The list goes on (obviously coming from a more adolescent point of view, but adults have their problems with the system too).

Eh. when you voted your government into place, that is what you do: you gave them the right to decide for you. Representative democracy, so to speak.

If one's unhappy, the solution is a referendum. politicize the cause, gather enough signatures, you force the issue into parliament.

also note one thing: democracy is government by the majority. both good and bad about that. despite its high flying tag, it is the sacrifice of the individual for the common good. that's why Oscar Wilde referred to democracy as: the bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people.

 

[Kiddo]

They violate my individual rights just fine. They COULD be used to protect them, but they are not.

Ah, but what you also fail to understand is the social contract defines what the individual rights are. Who is to say that I don't have the freedom to kill you or take your stuff? Why isn't that one of my individual rights? A social contract also involves consentfully giving up a great deal of individual freedom. I agree not to kill you and you agree not to kill me, therefore that is not an individual right. The fact that you define some individual rights outside of the social contract is immaterial unless you can others to consent to respect that freedom.

The world exists as anarchy even with order. Order is just a result of uneven distribution of power. Why is selfishness the downfall of selfishness? Why can selfishness not coexist with altruism and selflessness? Surely the altruists and communal people can have their collectives while the individualists come and go as they please. Recognizing the inevitability of a governing body is what leads me to minarchy. I want that governing body to be as small as possible, large enough only to protect my rights as an individual.

Minarchy is a dream. I could just as easily say, why can't we live in a world of perfectly equality, in which no one is greater than another and which everyone gets their fair share of the resources? Of course that would be a communistic world, and it is as impractical as minarchy. All political ideologies can sound good on paper, but most, such as communism and minarchy, simply are not practical in the real world.

Again, not an anarchist. I know under what pretenses anarchy would need to exist, and they are unattainable. I am not so irrational as to believe I can make all people logical or at least intelligent. The United States was founded as a country with limited government and political isolationism. It has since changed for the worse. Africa is an example of what happens with anarchy, and is one of my biggest arguments against it. Do not change what I have said or take it to an extreme. Puts you on the same level as Rand.

The United States was founded under the Articles of Confederation, which were soon dissolved once it became evident that the country could not survive without a strong central government. That United States Federal Government has been one of the greatest evils ever conceived by man because of its long history of exploitation but it was key to this country's survival. The principles by which the Constitution were created were amended from the original principles the founders envisioned for this country. Nonetheless, it is because of that Constitution that we even have a country.

 

[Mr Galt]

Eh. when you voted your government into place, that is what you do: you gave them the right to decide for you. Representative democracy, so to speak.

I did? I do not recall voting them into power. And suppose I did vote. What then? Would my one vote determine who represents me? No. Not to mention the fact that I do not want to be represented by anyone other than myself.

If one's unhappy, the solution is a referendum. politicize the cause, gather enough signatures, you force the issue into parliament.

So they can toss the idea out? Perfect.

the bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people.

And you have no problem with that statement being 100% true? Scary.

Kiddo, I will rebut your post later. I am tired and will be going to bed now. Plus, I am sure whatever I say will be infinitely more intelligent if I post it while I'm operating at 100% capacity

Good night.

 

[CzeCze]

Holy --

I can't help but notice threads with a high Texan concentration tend to get moved or split...

Wow, wth did this thread turn into?

Well, regardless I like a good discussion and since dear Spongie seems to be on his own on this one, I decided "one of the CC's" :yim_rolling_on_the_ should swoop in to tag team the Texans! (That rhymes! No wait...that's alliterative, nevermind). Not that Spongie needs it (you immovable, adamant INTPs you )

Half-joking aside --

I just wanted to point out to the Texans who commented about taxing the wealthy -- I got the impression from previous posts that the personal/family wealth you speak of is in the future and as yet undetermined? Basically you were not born into money nor do you have any annuities/inheritences/legal settlements coming your way?

Yours seems very much a working class/"pull myself up by my bootstraps" philosophy and it's totally valid of course, it's just that the tax structure based on class realities understand 'the rich' to be institutionalized. Even if you look at the Forbes list of richest billionaires or whatnot, many of them haveinherited their wealth (particularly from the same handful of families -- Walton anyone?) So while it's true there are noteable individuals who end up becoming self-made millionaires, it's the exception not the rule.

Generally people who 'earn their wealth' do so by working for/aligning themselves with other billionaries (by working with or for them.) Altogether 'the wealthy/the top 5% of the tax bracket' are an institution in themselves way beyond just a club. And even if you earn your personal wealth, your heirs will be born into it and be born another class of people, with new interests, new allegiances, etc. Those are the true interests pro/big business lobbies seek to serve, not necessarily "everyone else"

I don't mean this as a diss at all, I just see this IRL too and I don't quite get it. These people/groups/lobbies, are not your allies nor do they have your best interests or really any interest in mind.

Some of the most conservative liberal hating staunchly Republican party supporting people come from backgrounds that make me go And again, I'm not saying that you're Republican or conservative, but your comments about pro-big business/pro wealth remind me of this.

I remember a black African recent immigrant cab driver had pictures of Reagan in his cab and all sorts of Republican propaganda/slogans posted up. He told me and my roommate he hated Democrats and liberals and kept making fun of us for being hippies. He was eating a sandwich with one hand with the other on the steering wheel while he was driving which made me stare apprehensively. He saw me staring and asked me sarcastically if I wanted to eat the rest of his half-eaten sandwich and I said no thanks. And replied, "I never met a liberal who could pass up a free meal." Ha. Ha. Ha. He graced us with more one-liners. I left him with a big tip and said, "Here's a hand out from a liberal" ZING.

Anyhow, my delerious late night point (I have one, be patient) -- he kept talking about how Democrats want to take his money and give it to dead-beats. And I remember looking at his beat-up borrowed cab and thinking duuuuuude, what money??? You don't have any money! Republicans barely even consider you American!! Duuuuuuudee!!!!

Cabbies, btw are surprisingly well read and conservative -- all those hours they have to spend listening to NPR and all.

Also, he was surprisingly aware and otherwise tolerant. After I left the cab he asked my roommate quite respectfully, "Is she your partner?" Hahahahaah. So hey, you don't have to tell me that people are multi-faceted and surprising and can hold a multiple of seemingly incongruous viewpoints.

So them's my points somewhere in there.

Honestly, with FUBARED raucous threads like this, I honestly don't put in the same effort making sense or editing for style (or grammar, spelling, punctuation, and uh, sense) or 'follwing rules" (pfffbt) and all that. It's la vie boheme down here! Hahahahaha.

Edit: Shockingly this thread was deemed serious enough to move back to surface dweller's realm. So I did minimal editing. Just for you sun worshippers. You are welcome

 

[Mr Galt]

Just to clarify, I'm not a Texan...yet.

 

[CzeCze]

Oh Mr. Galt, I know you are in CA :horor:

I was referring just to the Texans b/c I hadn't read any posts from you about the sliding tax scale.

If it makes you feel any better, I totally think of you guys as Texans + Mr. Galt.

The derail mafia

 

[Wolf]

I can't read all of this thread. I just don't have the time...

It never ceases to amaze me how foreign Fe is to an INTJ.

You know that feeling of passion that you have for your individual rights? That is your Fi. Now imagine this; people can feel just as strongly for others because of their Fe.

I feel for the individual rights of others, too. I oppose those that destroy freedom and enforce socialism on us.

Those that wish to help others should be completely free to do so.

She means classical liberal, not modern liberal. As in libertarian liberal, not democrat liberal.

Democrats are not liberals, they're socialists. Liberalism is completely different from socialism. Using the term to describe them is newspeak.

You know, I fell off my bike while riding with an INTJ friend once and he looked back, laughed, and rode off without even seeing if I was okay. The fact that the XNTJ personalties are built around self preservation of the ego is your only redeeming quality. It provides you with an excuse for being so obsessed with your self interests while playing little heed to the needs and interests of others. In essence, you guys are built to look out only for yourself and so its forgivable that you tend to lack sympathy and compassion for others.

This is not standard operating procedure and is more like a psychopath than an INTJ. Lots of people confuse the two; you're not the first and probably won't be the last.

How did you know they were an INTJ, and that you're not just stereotyping because the person offended you due to being a psychopath (or maybe it was a competition - I don't know)?

I'd tell you about what I did yesterday, but your views seem far too entrenched.

It's not just INTJs. All the big time Fe shadow people's are generally fierce individualists/conservatives/classical liberals.

Since when were these lumped together? The first and the third, sure, but how are either associated directly with conservatives?

That includes...

ENTJ, ESTJ
INTJ, ISTJ
ENFP, ESFP

When I overgeneralize, I do it big! Big I tell ya!

Some of these types are into rule/law mongering and status-quo maintainers resistant to change. They are more provider/protector than what you're describing.

Or suppose, perhaps, that I view relationships differently than you do. In my mind the worst crime a person can commit is to do something to somebody else "for their own good". Either admit you're doing it for less than moral or don't do it.

It's their lack of empathy. See, I find that offensive as strongly as Kiddo here finds giving people freedom whenever it doesn't actively and with malice or due to negligence infringe on the freedom of others.

That aside, using your lack of Fe to rationalize the fact that your real concerns are in yourself and your own ideals is a pretty shitty thing to do- real frienship is about giving- not sitting aside and watching someone else destroy themselves.

Uber is free to do as he pleases. I did not agree with him a large percentage of the time, especially when he was actively-offensive without furthering a point. It was illogical and seemed more feeling than thinking.

Something you apparently haven't realized is that there are two different types of classical liberalism. Social liberalism and Free Market liberalism. You, and most others who identify themselves as "libertarian" are Free Market liberals, which is an ideology that falls to the right, whereas social liberalism, such as your classic hippy, falls toward the left. Very few people are truly "classical liberals" because ideas like a "free market" and "social equality" did not exist the same way in the 18th century as they do today.

No, classical liberalism is both combined. Hippies are mostly socialists (those that want the man to give them handouts to continue being hippies), not liberals. There was some early crossover, but they murdered and ate those that were actually liberal when they didn't get fed by the man.

Republicans (right wing)
Economy: socialist with authoritarian pandering to special interest groups that occasionally appears liberal
Social issues: centrist but conservative leaning, slight pandering to special interest groups

Democrats (left wing)
Economy: authoritarian-socialist, slight pandering to special interest groups
Social issues: authoritarian pandering to special interest groups

Libertarian
Economy: liberal
Social issues: liberal

Corrected.

Hey, however you want to put it. Then there are very few true "libertarians" because most people either do value a "free market" or "social equality".

Forcing social equality is not libertarian, it is authoritarian, and we are averse to authoritarianism without merit. Advocating and supporting personal freedom is libertarian.

Liberalism literally means a rejection of authority, so if you were truly liberal then you would be an anarchist.

Where did you find your dictionary? Liberalism is not rebellion except in a heavily-conservative and/or authoritarian culture. We do not reject all laws/rules, only those that enforce

But all that doesn't matter since I know you value free market liberalism and are thus a right-wing minded person. Of course, you and your other "libertarian" buddies can prove me wrong by marching in a gay pride parade and sending me some pictures. If you demonstrate just as much social liberalism as you do free market liberalism, then I wouldn't be inclined to believe you lean to the right.

Why would you march in a gay pride parade to prove liberalism? That just proves you belong to some special interest group, not that you support their right to freedom just as much as the next person.

Gay rights? Maybe. We introverted libertarians are working behind the scenes and on the internet to help people realize that such laws are wrong. They're almost never enforced, but that's not the point.

Basically, you confuse everything I am and stand for, and it really bothers me.

 

[elfinchilde]

And you have no problem with that statement being 100% true? Scary.

sigh. Eh. Read my statement IN ITS ENTIRETY. It's frustrating to conduct a debate when others keep skipping your points and insist on homing in on what they view is against them. As again:

also note one thing: democracy is government by the majority. both good and bad about that. despite its high flying tag, it is the sacrifice of the individual for the common good. that's why Oscar Wilde referred to democracy as: the bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people.

I was DISAGREEING with democracy, in case you can't see it. Was just trying to keep objective by acknowledging both its pros and cons. If you wish to see my views on democracy, go to

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/4401-israel-your-opinion-10.html#post184949

Basically: every system of governance has boths its strengths and flaws. It's a fallacy to assume that democracy is the 'best', or that it works for everyone. That's my stand.

for the record, i'm against representative democracy especially: most of the time, voting is skewed. money buys power. and most of what we call democracies, are in effect, capitalist systems. Plutoarchy, if you wish.

 

[Mr Galt]

From what I am seeing here, you have no opinion but a large collection of facts.

 

[Kiddo]

Mr. Wolf. The infuriating thing about reading your post was it was simply all wrong and based entirely on your own views and beliefs, whereas I actually consulted political texts to back up my assessments. Liberalism literally does mean a rejection of authority. The political implications of the word only began in the Enlightenment and have continued on to modern time. It was also conservatives who labeled the left "liberal".

Hippy/social liberals are just as much liberal as free market liberals. Social liberals don't force social equality, or take hand outs from the government, they live their lives as they will regardless of how the authority structure says they should. You actually should do a little reading before imposing your own opinions on the topic at hand. Seriously, just because you and all your right-wing minded liberal buddies define yourself as "true liberals" doesn't make it true. You value a "free market" system over "social liberties" and that naturally puts you to the right.

I can't even be bothered to argue the rest of your post since most of it is clearly based entirely on your own opinion. It saddens me that your view is so narrow that the only way you conceive of valuing social equality is by imposing it on others.

Ug...I hate it when people come in and assert their own opinion as fact. Why do I even bother reading up on these political philosophies and their histories if a bunch of INTJs are going to redefine them?

 

[Wolf]

Mr. Wolf. The infuriating thing about reading your post was it was simply all wrong and based entirely on your own views and beliefs, whereas I actually consulted political texts to back up my assessments. Liberalism literally does mean a rejection of authority. The political implications of the word only began in the Enlightenment and have continued on to modern time. It was also conservatives who labeled the left "liberal".

Hippy/social liberals are just as much liberal as free market liberals. Social liberals don't force social equality, or take hand outs from the government, they live their lives as they will regardless of how the authority structure says they should. You actually should do a little reading before imposing your own opinions on the topic at hand. Seriously, just because you and all your right-wing minded liberal buddies define yourself as "true liberals" doesn't make it true. You value a "free market" system over "social liberties" and that naturally puts you to the right.

I can't even be bothered to argue the rest of your post since most of it is clearly based entirely on your own opinion. It saddens me that your view is so narrow that the only way you conceive of valuing social equality is by imposing it on others.

Ug...I hate it when people come in and assert their own opinion as fact. Why do I even bother reading up on these political philosophies and their histories if a bunch of INTJs are going to redefine them?

Actually, you're completely wrong, do not understand what I said (clearly, since you mistook what I said for the exact opposite and claimed I held positions I do not), and your sources are skewed due to their biases, which you accept without questioning. When your sources are skewed, as yours are, you will never see reality nor understand others. Clean your glasses and take care of your problems before you come out to play with us.

Independent thought is dead. No wonder socialism is so popular.

 

[miss fortune]

you could debate with me!

I missed out on this thread due to intensive participation in another and the fact that sleep is a good thing.

 

[Kiddo]

Actually, you're completely wrong, do not understand what I said (clearly, since you mistook what I said for the exact opposite and claimed I held positions I do not), and your sources are skewed due to their biases, which you accept without questioning. When your sources are skewed, as yours are, you will never see reality nor understand others. Clean your glasses and take care of your problems before you come out to play with us.

Independent thought is dead. No wonder socialism is so popular.

I actually went and read the political philosophies in question as written by the political philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, etc. It seems to me that your sources are what are skewed.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Moved from Graveyard.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Moved from Graveyard.

Doesn't this thread belong in politics and philosophy?

 

[ByMySword]

To address a couple of points here... I honestly don't believe in inheritance. I consider heirs to fortunes as valid as heirs to crowns.

All right. Then give your inheritance to the poor. Let me keep mine.

EDIT: of course it's hypothetical! You're Intuitive, right?

I know. I was just stating my frusteration that I don't actually have the kind of wealth we're talking about, so I don't know everything it takes to maintain it. But I believe my principle is sound. Yours is just different.

 

[ByMySword]

What constitutes ludicrously inappropriate? I bet many people that we consider poor here would be considered rich by many living in third world ghettos or refugee camps. Would the poor here be willing to give over a large portion of there money to help those who are more poor?

Well, I'm glad I kept reading, because I was going to post just this.

 

[ByMySword]

When necessary, of course. Why not?

Yeah, why not? The problem with people in this country today is that they've been tamed by the government. Desensitized. I bet the thought of revolution doesn't ever even enter the average American's head.

"Well, the government fucked me over again. Oh fiddlesticks."

*as he sits down and munches on Doritos*

If you can change what's wrong by following the laws of the government and diplomatically, then all the power to you. When that fails, I'm grabbin the shotgun.

 

[Kiddo]

Well, I'm glad I kept reading, because I was going to post just this.

It's funny because I'm just a very poor college student and I help however I can. It seems people's attitudes have a lot more to do with what portion of their income and time they contribute to helping others, than how much money they have.

 

[miss fortune]

Poverty is relative