In my personal view while people all have individual rights that are unalienable, bestowed by nature and natures God IMO, they also have a duty to the society they live in. I don't believe there is a strict God given or nature given right everybody has to have absolute control over their own wealth like there is an unalienable right to things like free speech and self-defense. Economic freedom, taken to it's logical final extreme, would require nobody pay taxes for anything that didn't benefit them or just for anything they didn't want. As a duty everybody has to the society they live in, I think it's our job to make it better by providing things like education, health care, safety, and the general well being for the people they live with barring it being obvious that person has lost the right to receive those things through there own bad actions. Also in my view there is a higher standard we need to follow to make sure we don't exploit others for our own selfish needs. Like it or not things like taxes are what make our society function. You could say it's the price we pay to have a society. Does that mean everybody should be equal? No, I don't think so. However, if that means wealth has to be controlled to a degree in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, then that's what needs to happen. If at times the things we need to do economically to achieve that approach a socialistic bent, then so be it. An injustice against one is an injustice against all. Part of having liberty and freedom is as much looking out for each other than it is the “me me me me me, what can I get” part of it.
Political Compass Test
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
ok. that helps.
what I infured was that your original opinion is that individual liberty is in conflict with collective intrest, in regards to property ownership.
what I'm proposing is that if the answer to the question of ownership of self is No, and therefor that same viewpoint is applied to all members of a society, then you can have a collective intrest that doesn't infringe on personal liberty, because they are both the same thing.
Philbert
Banned
Whenever I hear collective interest and personal liberty are the same, I get Orwellian chills.
On the lighter side, I'm right between Nelson and Mahatma, 'cept I'm 2/3 closer to dead center.
I tried to take the words literally, to be accurate. So many questions weren't specific enough, I thought. Like rounding off a conditional agree to a disagree.
Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51 :eek:
not sure what you mean. orwell always argued for the same conflict. in my oppinion if you think that personal liberty can only be granted by the dissolution of collective intrest, then you're still investing the collective with the authority to provide that. when the two are inseperabley linked and your goal is to disconnect them, then it's no wonder they are always going to be in conflict and most assured to not represent each other.
"Self ownership" is a different concept from "Ownership of Self". Only slaves don't own themselves.
Property right is the fundamental right from which all rights derive.
Individual liberty is almost always at conflict with collective interest precisely because of inconsistency regarding "who owns the property".
This concept is easy to understand when you answer the questions:
and
cheers,
The culture of many of the American Indian tribes did not have the concept of individual private property. In their worldview private property should be used by who ever needed it at the time. Nobody owned it. For example, an Indian would give a tool to the white man to use. The white man would consider it a gift, but the Indian would take back the tool when he needed it. This is where the expression “Indian Giver” came from.
Land or real property was seen in a different light. The American settlers always wanted the Indian land. One Indian Chief was amused by the ways the white man sold many thinks by its weight or in pounds. When asked how he would sell the tribal lands he said “We will sell it by the pound”.
That's a contradiction of terms or incorrect logic.
a. If something is free for everyone to use - it's not "private" property.
b. How is it "property" if no one owns it?
c. If you don't own it, how can you stake your rights on it and claim it for your use?
cheers,
And they acknowledged it as such - they never implied "it's your private property but I can use it when I want".
Fox,
I'm getting tired of your baiting. What part of my earlier response about "I'm ok with others living their lives as they see fit if they'll accord me the same respect" did you not understand?
cheers,
Good point. I guess it's hard for somebody from Western Civilization to understand how other cultures think. I use the terms from a Western point of view so that it could be understood by the readers on this board. Private property is an idea that has been invented by most cultures. The term is not "natural” but are an arbitrary abstract social construct use to make sense of things in most cultures. My point was it is not universal and not present in all cultures. In some societies it is a source of shame have things. In these societies you are expected to give your things as gifts and to regift it as soon as you can. Social solitary was strength by the exchanges. I can’t explain it any better because I am also blinded by my acculturation in Western Civilization and it seem very strange to me also. The human mind has created many realities and most are equally valid. .
You're STILL thinking of "property" in terms of "material goods, land, businesses and houses".
Hence, you are still having trouble understanding "property ownership" and the concept of "rights". Hence why I say you don't understand libertarianism (but that never stopped you from critiquing it!).
Communism argues that only collective ownership through a polity, though not necessarily a state, will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore all, or almost all, private property should be abolished.
Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate.
My 'concept' is very simple:
You "own" your own life, and it follows that you must "own" the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others.
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." - John Locke
If you're still looking for clarity - try this webpage. It's made as simple as possible.
You too, see "property" as limited to material goods etc.YMIHERE said:
I'm not questioning their "validity". Only their "morality" "justness".
I urge you to take a look at the link I posted in this reply.
cheers,
whats the difference in the parties?
Because for you, anyone that is wealthy and who busted his/her ass off to succeed should share it freely with everyone? Not for me. The concept of sharing private property is definitely something I am completely against. One has made studies and one has a wage that he manages and with which he buys the goods and the object he wants. People are giving chances to study, a lot of idiots screw this chance, it is not the role of other people to assist them. One should always be hold as responsible for his actions and decisions. Socialism or/and Communism have never given an opportunity to people to evolve in their job or to have a better salary or an even better standard of living. See what has given communism in Cuba (a country that you seem to prefer to USA despite your US citizenship) and see what happened to the former U.S.S.R republics, they have troubles to evolve and there are big discrepancies inside these countries. Mass democracy isn't real and communism as well as socialism are both failures. I think you should start working find a job and stop dreaming of a communist utopian world.
Given your response - I'm inclined to believe otherwise.
Yes - just keep dismissing the majority who DO form part of the "middle class". The same majority who profit from capitalism.
Keep dismissing the fact that more "poor people" buy from Wal-Mart because it is an affordable source of cheap goods.
The very fact that more people emigrate to the US than any other country should tell you something - but I guess it doesn't. All those folks who seek to emigrate to my country are "stupid, dumb, 'blinded sheep' idiots"; right Fox?
This is the fundamental difference between someone like me and someone like you, Fox.
I consider "charity" to be one of the most humanistic and eternal ideals. Charity ENTAILS that a person contribute of his/her own FREE WILL to dictate or ensure that some cause receives support.
The American people have contributed more in charity than their government ever has. Example:
Link
Yes. And it is their RIGHT to do so.
Fox, you don't ever think twice about forcing someone to conform to your beliefs! You moan all the time about how "americans are brainwashed into believing the 'propaganda machine' from the White House"... yet you fail to divulge HOW you know of this.... AND YOU ALSO FAIL TO PROVIDE A FUCKING ALTERNATIVE!
The War is going bad - wow! Needed a rocket scientist to figure THAT out!
Since you seem to know a lot about it - why does it "not work" ?
Why do you insist on diminishing those who made it up from the doldrums to a respectable top? Why are you convinced that free market capitalism CANNOT make "rags to riches" ... despite evidence to show OTHERWISE?
Actually WE DO. The free market differentiates NOT between "rich" "poor" "powerful" "handicapped", "deaf", "dumb" etc.
The "free market" differentiates between only TWO classes of folks/organisations ---- "profitable" and "unprofitable".
Your "buzzword excuse" has actually given millions of the poor an access to healthcare and a steady job which pays worth while wages.
I've asked you socialists Time and Time and Time again - would you rather be "poor" in America or would you rather be "poor" in one of them socialist nations?
Sure you fucking don't - because you don't know what Communism actually IS.
"a mass democracy by which the majority of the people always get what they want" also resulted in Adolf Hitler gaining power in Germany.
Bullshit Fox. You still haven't - and I suppose you never will - understand the concept. It IS NOT a very "common" concept.
Because if you DID understand the "concept", you would have 'responded' a lot more clearly that when you did.....
Actually sometimes - Things ARE that simple! Socialism implies that "the individual is nothing but the collective is everything." Socialism imples that individuals are criminals.
Fox: You maybe perfectly happy and content in "covering" a "government" as regards your rights. Enjoy your 'dream world' Fox.....
Like I said before Fox - be happy in signing away your RIGHTS to others..... just don't expect me as a part of it.
Yeah Fox. You're snow white and have never done the same.
1. Thanks for bringing a "private message" conversation to the public. Shows how much I can trust you now.
2. Anyone on this board can read if I personally insulted you or not. Just read the conversations on this thread alone.
Hated? Quit making up scenarios.
Sure you do Fox - just like you claim those who don't agree with your PoV to be "propaganda blinded sheep".
Note to the unweary - this is trademark Fox. Readers can read my posts clear from the start of December'06 and see the difference for themselves.
Your imagination is indeed very fertile. From the point of you being "very respectful" to my being "hostile" towards you.
And naturally, you bring someone else (PV) into the post - though he has nothing to do with this at all! Standard tactic of yours - when in a corner, start painting not just the folks who disagree with... but EVERYone else even remotely connected to the situation as a .... "relevant charecter".
And this "post" is not a "response" to that? :1orglaugh
Makes one wonder indeed.
Says you, Fox.
To be frankly honest - I'm not "bothered about" the world. I'm more bothered about fixing issues in my own country. Let the rest of the world live as it so pleases - I'm fully in support of that.
And I've always said that - you've just never accepted it....
cheers,
Yeah Fox,
You're the innocent here.
I'm the demon.
You can never send out insulting PMs or messages on the boards.
You keep complaining of "public attacks" on you --- never mind the fact that none have been perpetrated from my side since December '06. The public can indeed read the facts for what they are.
The fact that you constantly bring up/reference the contents of our PRIVATE messages in public - despite the fact that I do not do the same --- only shows your charecter.
Yeah Fox. I'm the bad guy here! Yep!
Keep referencing those who don't see your PoV as "blinded sheep" Fox, and DO keep claiming innocence when someone accuses you of "labeling" others.
cheers,
You're the innocent here.
I'm the demon.
You can never send out insulting PMs or messages on the boards.
You keep complaining of "public attacks" on you --- never mind the fact that none have been perpetrated from my side since December '06. The public can indeed read the facts for what they are.
The fact that you constantly bring up/reference the contents of our PRIVATE messages in public - despite the fact that I do not do the same --- only shows your charecter.
Yeah Fox. I'm the bad guy here! Yep!
Keep referencing those who don't see your PoV as "blinded sheep" Fox, and DO keep claiming innocence when someone accuses you of "labeling" others.
cheers,
Ghandi was a leader, but not the leader of a nation ...
I think people forget that Ghandi was a great leader, but not the leader of a nation that had to deal with macroeconomics, foreign policy, etc...
I am a staunch and true Jeffersonian Libertarian, which qualifies as a Libertarian Conservative in this test. It's the basis of the modern, US Libertarian party. There is a much better political test out there that does a far better job in "breaking things down" beyond just what the US media classifies as 2, 3 or 4 types. In fact, I don't consider the "political spectrum" to be a linear 2D map of 2 axis, I consider it to be a "surface area" with the 2-axes wrapped on a sphere. I.e., too much liberalism or conservatism can both "wrap around" into anarchy. Same deal with capitalism v. socialism.
I strongly believe that any attempt by the government to offer "safety nets" results in not only taking away choice, but bringing everything down to the "lowest common denominator." We are all created equal and we are all entitled to equal opportunity, but the idea of the government trying to enforce "fair" beyond just "equal opportunity" is firmly rooted in communism. And it fails utterly.
Because at least in capitalism, the rich aren't above the law. Yes, many will argue they can bend it quite a bit. But wealth and government are separate entities, even if people accuse them of working in cohorts. In communism, those who make the laws are the ones who also obtain the wealth and privilege, as we've seen time and time again. Capitalism with both regulation and a healthy, INDIVIDUAL choice of socialism (instead of MANDATED/FORCED choice like socialism/communism) works very well. When Capitalism becomes overbearing, the people rise up and form socialist entities to "fight back," and it's a good balance. But when you force people to do such, and take away individual choice, you're striking against freedom, not merely just Capitalism.
The more you try to "equalize" materials, the less "opportunity" there is for those to excel and success. And that just brings down a society, because no one is important, no one is special and there is no incentive to excel and succeed when you have such artificially imposed limits on one's capabilities.
I think people forget that Ghandi was a great leader, but not the leader of a nation that had to deal with macroeconomics, foreign policy, etc...
I am a staunch and true Jeffersonian Libertarian, which qualifies as a Libertarian Conservative in this test. It's the basis of the modern, US Libertarian party. There is a much better political test out there that does a far better job in "breaking things down" beyond just what the US media classifies as 2, 3 or 4 types. In fact, I don't consider the "political spectrum" to be a linear 2D map of 2 axis, I consider it to be a "surface area" with the 2-axes wrapped on a sphere. I.e., too much liberalism or conservatism can both "wrap around" into anarchy. Same deal with capitalism v. socialism.
I strongly believe that any attempt by the government to offer "safety nets" results in not only taking away choice, but bringing everything down to the "lowest common denominator." We are all created equal and we are all entitled to equal opportunity, but the idea of the government trying to enforce "fair" beyond just "equal opportunity" is firmly rooted in communism. And it fails utterly.
Because at least in capitalism, the rich aren't above the law. Yes, many will argue they can bend it quite a bit. But wealth and government are separate entities, even if people accuse them of working in cohorts. In communism, those who make the laws are the ones who also obtain the wealth and privilege, as we've seen time and time again. Capitalism with both regulation and a healthy, INDIVIDUAL choice of socialism (instead of MANDATED/FORCED choice like socialism/communism) works very well. When Capitalism becomes overbearing, the people rise up and form socialist entities to "fight back," and it's a good balance. But when you force people to do such, and take away individual choice, you're striking against freedom, not merely just Capitalism.
The more you try to "equalize" materials, the less "opportunity" there is for those to excel and success. And that just brings down a society, because no one is important, no one is special and there is no incentive to excel and succeed when you have such artificially imposed limits on one's capabilities.
Similar threads
