So, you consider yourself a Democrat, do you?

[Smurf]

I agree with your theory, with one caveat: throughout recent history (the past 40 years or so), it has always been liberals doing the most complaining (in real life, as well as the internet forums). Even when Clinton was President, the hippies were out in force, protesting things like the IMF. Republicans don't have activist (or terrorist) groups equivalent to Greenpeace, ELF, or all those random hippies on many college campuses.

Internet conspiracy theories are heavily dominated by the left - even the one good Clinton conspiracy theory (that he'd use FEMA to sieze dictatorial power after the Y2K crisis ) had a liberal bend.

Complaining seems to be a fundamental aspect of the ideology - and it is linked to excessive idealism.

I was about to say the same thing under clinton liberals would still have been complaining. (I hypothesize because I was very young and uninterested in politics when he was in power - so I didn't pay attention)

However I, like LYN, don't think this is about liberalism, it's about the fact that, by comparison to anywhere else on the planet, Clinton simply wasn't all that liberal, just in comparison to reagan and bush, which are really extreme-right by comparison to most of the west.

This speaks more about the inherent conservatism of America in general than it does about Liberals. Let's face it, America has never been all that liberal. If you were to look at Canada I think you'll find that the people to right of the Administration are doing most of the complaining. God.. how many times have I seen stephen harper *****ing about privatising healthcare? I've lost count, really! Does this mean that all Conservatives complain? No, it means Canada has a more liberal majority and smaller but still sizable conservative minority. The opposite of the US.

 

[russ_watters]

However I, like LYN, don't think this is about liberalism, it's about the fact that, by comparison to anywhere else on the planet, Clinton simply wasn't all that liberal, just in comparison to reagan and bush, which are really extreme-right by comparison to most of the west.

No, Clinton wasn't that liberal, but he was a little left of center, so if anything there should have been slightly more conservatives than liberals out protesting in those days.

This speaks more about the inherent conservatism of America in general than it does about Liberals. Let's face it, America has never been all that liberal.

America was quite liberal in the '60s.

 

[Smurf]

1.) That's a hell of a collection of assumptions to make about somebody who you know VERY LITTLE about his polititcal views.

I wasn't speaking about anyone. I was speaking about basic human psychology (or sociology, depending on how you look at it), which you obviously don't agree with. My answer for that reaction is that you do not want to and so refuse to identify yourself with an ideology, this does not make you unique, it makes you individualist. (which, unlike some, I would not call an ideology)

2.) Not everyone who has an original idea is a revolutionary, nor have they been published. I think elitist viewpoints like that really sell people short.

Am I being elitest? Simply stating that a human being is merely a member of a much larger (6.5 billion times larger) group, and stating that trying to separate themselves from such is foolhardy? I don't think that's elitest, I think that's collectivist.

This, as I pointed out, is part of a book I have been working on. Is it not a *truly* original idea until a publisher deems it such?

Of course not. Tell you what, when you publish your book, I'll read it and tell you which ideology you belong to. (excepting the small chance that you come up with an actually new idea. - in which case I'll congradulate you)

 

[vanesch]

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

We're talking about 2. here, no ?

The fact that a person identifies with an ideology does not make him different than a person that has equally many beliefs and assumptions about society but merely refuses to identify with an ideology, for any reason.

Could you explain what you mean ? You mean, everybody adheres to an ideology, but some are so honest about it that they say so, and others don't ?

Incorrect Over-Simplification. Free markets are only advocated as solutions to economic issues, and not always either. Capitalists, for example, have never advocated the privatisation of (i.e. the free trade of) armed forces, police forces, or any other issues of national or federal defence and concern.

It depends. Some hard-core capitalists do, but you're right: capitalists recognize the need of a state function in order to avoid individual violence and enforce the rule: property rights.

Simply incorrect. Different communists will advocate different systems on which to arrive at a decision. The main ideology (i.e. idea) behind communism is communal ownership, and equality.

Would communists (real ones of course) accept the solution to the problem: "how do we make the best car" is: well, by having different private initiatives make cars, and have them compete on the market ?
If part of the solution to a particular problem is: give private ownership to people and let them be different, then the solution to our problem will be better, would communists consider that ?

Incorrect. Anarchists only recognize one "kind" (characteristic) of state structure, and that is hierachy of power. They do advocate the abolishment of such hierarchy, but do not herald it as the solution to everything.

You can't be a bit pregnant, so you can't have a bit of hierarchy. If you advocate the abolishment of hierarchy you cannot do anything else but herald it as the solution to everything, because if it isn't there, it isn't there.

Any given system will inherently consider many responses to any difficult problem, but will usually end up with 1 or 2 which those of the dominant ideology will approve of according to their beliefs. Again, these solutions will vary depending on the solution. A capitalist might, for example, advocate the lowering of trade tarriffs on principle, but make exception to food produce and advocate high tariffs on foreign import to encourage national farming, because he considers it of national importance.

That's not a real capitalist, sorry. A capitalist (a real, ideological one) advocates the free market for everything except law and order. What you have above is someone who is more pragmatic, like I (and Townsend) advocate.

I don't think you'll find a single ideology that advocates fixing a problem before looking at it.

In fact, I have not yet seen a single ideology that advocates looking at the problem before fixing the class of acceptable solutions that are to be envisioned.

More rubbish. Everyone tries to find the best solution. The only difference between ideologies is that their ideas on how to do it and what a solution actually is, differ greatly. God, I'm repeating myself now.

Then how do communists and capitalists define differently what is the solution to "making the best car" ?

This solution is often advocated by democratic socialists, actually. However, I suspect they're reasons were thought out a lot more than yours were. You probably just mentioned it because it contrasts ever so slightly to those you mentioned before.

Well, it might surprise you but the social-democrat vision is indeed what I often find acceptable if they don't resort to typical "distribute cookies" mentality. And the funny thing is: social democrats get the critique (rightly so) that they DON'T HAVE AN IDEOLOGY. They were historically left-wing (and still have left-wing grassroots), they lean more and more towards capitalism with some social corrections, and have a hard time distinguishing themselves on any point from other parties. Usually the exit of social-democrat voters turn fascist. At least in 2 countries where I've witnessed this: in Belgium, the city of Antwerp was the social-democrat bulwark, and is now around 40% or so fascist, and the north of France was typically socialist (= social-democrat in france) and now turns massively Le Pen. This somehow shows that there's no deep ideology fixed to them.
The main problem with social-democrat PARTIES is that they have a historical link to the worker's unions, which is a bunch of self-serving hypocrits.

 

[Smurf]

No, Clinton wasn't that liberal, but he was a little left of center, so if anything there should have been slightly more conservatives than liberals out protesting in those days.

Where exactly is the center? Does being left-wing automatically mean he was a liberal? Liberalism is an ideology, Left-wing is a mainstream attempt at branding political ideas into a 2-D scale for easy-bake-culture-wars.

America was quite liberal in the '60s.

Well, my political history of the US doesn't really go back that far. I'll ask you this though, are you sure the administration was liberal, and that the conservatives weren't complaining? I think that branding the administration liberal or conservative is confusing, it's a matter of degree really (this is, of course, using the popular idea that they're in opposition). If the administration is more liberal than the people are, the conservatives will be heard complaining. If the administration is more conservative than the people are, the liberals will be heard complaining. If they are both the same, there won't be much (or will be equally as much) complaining on both sides.

I think that the more conservative population in the US in the 60s was still quite low, left-ism really took off in the 50s with rock and roll. Kids grow up listening to Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and the like, 10 years later they're not going to be christian fundamentalists, they're going to be free-loving hippies arn't they?

What do you think?

 

[Smurf]

Could it occur to you that there are people (like me, and a lot of others), that simply DON'T feel attracted to any particular simple set of rules of what OUGHT TO BE, and that we also don't have any ALTERNATIVE rule we secretly would like to have.

Yes, I meant them to form the main population of group 1 (Those that simply havn't decided what they believe in.). If you don't agree with anything you've heard so far, and you can't think of your ideas, then you havn't decided yet. You might never.

"I don't know, I'll decide every day what I'd like to eat, it depends on what my mood will be".

That, I would say, is a ridiculous analogy. It also doesn't make any sense. You can't be socialist one day and anarchist the next.

Am I conformist ? Yes. I think that no matter how you want to change the world, you'll make a mess of it when you start with some ideology.

I don't see what that has to do with conformity.

Am I pragmatist ? Yes. I don't think one should stick to a certain solution of a problem for ideological reasons if it is plain obvious that another one is better.

I don't think anyone would.

What's my ideology then, if I have to have one ?

I don't know. Like raven said, I hardly know you. My current impression is that you're a jeffersonian, but I could be dead wrong. I expect I probably am.

 

[Evo]

Could it occur to you that there are people (like me, and a lot of others), that simply DON'T feel attracted to any particular simple set of rules of what OUGHT TO BE, and that we also don't have any ALTERNATIVE rule we secretly would like to have. Could you conceive that there are people who like to eat sausage, but don't think that everything should be sausage, and eat salad, but don't think that you shoul eat salad every day, and who find every nutcase wanting to have everybody eat sausage or salad a nuisance, and that you can't reasonably expect them to answer the question: "yes, but YOU, what food would you want to eat every day then ?" except for the answer you do not seem to accept, which is: "I don't know, I'll decide every day what I'd like to eat, it depends on what my mood will be".

Am I conformist ? Yes. I think that no matter how you want to change the world, you'll make a mess of it when you start with some ideology. So just as well stick to the current one. Am I pragmatist ? Yes. I don't think one should stick to a certain solution of a problem for ideological reasons if it is plain obvious that another one is better. Do I read up on the latest semantic struggle concerning the ideology that's the new hype ? No, because I know in advance that we will get again a grandiose view of how our current world is rotten and how nice it would be if we all just did *this*. What do I find interesting in some ideologies ? To consider them as dynamical systems and try to find "their equations of motion", as a game: what will be predictable consequences of certain sets of initial conditions.

What's my ideology then, if I have to have one ? I want to be reasonably happy, and even that is not a very high priority.

EDIT: I forgot to say: my highest priority is to make sure that the collection of scientific knowledge collected by humankind will not be lost when the ants will come to power.

:!) :!) :!) Finally someone on an even keel that can think on their own. Bravo!

 

[vanesch]

Yes, I meant them to form the main population of group 1 (Those that simply havn't decided what they believe in.). If you don't agree with anything you've heard so far, and you can't think of your ideas, then you havn't decided yet. You might never.

What if the idea I stick to is to never have such a fixation of ideas ?

That, I would say, is a ridiculous analogy. It also doesn't make any sense. You can't be socialist one day and anarchist the next.

Why not ? That's the main point. If "acting like a socialist" would seem to me to be the best thing to do on monday, and "acting like an anarchist" on friday, because the problem I'm confronted with and my mood is different, why not ? This is exactly "my ideology" :-)

My current impression is that you're a jeffersonian, but I could be dead wrong. I expect I probably am.

Is that serious ? Should I go to the doctor now ?

 

[Smurf]

We're talking about 2. here, no ?

Either or, they both work as far as I can see.

Could you explain what you mean ? You mean, everybody adheres to an ideology, but some are so honest about it that they say so, and others don't ?

No, no, no. I mean, everybody has beliefs. Everyone has a set of assumptions and ideas on which they judge the world. Many people will read a book on Social Democracy, or Communism, or Anarchism, and will identify with that ideology. Meaning, they will find a word which they find describes, more or less accurately, they're set of beliefs about the world. This person has found their ideology. Ideologies can change, I used to be a capitalist. This means that my ideas about the world have changed, and so I no longer agreed with capitalist ideas, so I was forced to change. Currently I identify myself with Anarchism. This means that my beliefs are shared by a number of anarchists. I have never read a book about anarchism, my beliefs are my own, however, they just happen to agree with a number of other people's beliefs, these people and myself call outselves anarchists.

It depends. Some hard-core capitalists do, but you're right: capitalists recognize the need of a state function in order to avoid individual violence and enforce the rule: property rights.

Indeed my point was to show that solutions can vary according to capitalism, as I will show again with communism:

Would communists (real ones of course) accept the solution to the problem: "how do we make the best car" is: well, by having different private initiatives make cars, and have them compete on the market ?
If part of the solution to a particular problem is: give private ownership to people and let them be different, then the solution to our problem will be better, would communists consider that ?

As long as the workers collectivly own the produce of their labour, it is a communist solution. (correct me if I'm wrong alexandra) Centralized government and economy is not really an aspect of communism, a free market is acceptable. I have heard many communists advocate complete abolishion of government as an eventual goal. Indeed, anarchists are not that different in many respect (which is why me and alexandra get along so well), I could almost be one myself.

You can't be a bit pregnant, so you can't have a bit of hierarchy. If you advocate the abolishment of hierarchy you cannot do anything else but herald it as the solution to everything, because if it isn't there, it isn't there.

I also think getting rid of balony is important. However, this doesn't necessarily mean I think getting rid of balony will solve everything, it just means I think it's part of the process. (I actually do, I'm a vegetarian - balony is eeeeevvviiillll)

That's not a real capitalist, sorry. A capitalist (a real, ideological one) advocates the free market for everything except law and order. What you have above is someone who is more pragmatic, like I (and Townsend) advocate.

Okay, I guess it's all about what makes a 'capitalist'. I think what it comes down to is "Would a person who calls himself a capitalist - advocate such a response", because who are we to tell a person what they do or do not believe? In the end, I think we would find that some capitalists would, and some would not. (Perhapse you think they should have different names, perhapse you're right, it's all about definitions I guess)

In fact, I have not yet seen a single ideology that advocates looking at the problem before fixing the class of acceptable solutions that are to be envisioned.

I think it's considered common sense. They don't really feel a need to say "We will look at a problem, figure out what it is, and then solve it."

Then how do communists and capitalists define differently what is the solution to "making the best car" ?

Communists don't really consider making 'the best cars' a major concern. Capitalists obviously think that by offering monetary rewards for better performance they will make the best cars (although this isn't really capitalism - so much as a business application within capitalism). The communist reponse would probably be that best performance comes when workers have solidarity over their produce and labour... Why do you ask?

Well, it might surprise you but the social-democrat vision is indeed what I often find acceptable if they don't resort to typical "distribute cookies" mentality.

I think most people find social-democrat visions to be acceptable, just because it seems so much easier.

And the funny thing is: social democrats get the critique (rightly so) that they DON'T HAVE AN IDEOLOGY.

That's more because the term social-democrat is really a party-name. I probably shouldn't have used it as an ideology. I think the main ideology behind such parties is Libertarian, but it probably varies a lot from party to party and country to country. Social democracy has been rather watered down, even more so than terms like Communism and Socialism.

They were historically left-wing (and still have left-wing grassroots), they lean more and more towards capitalism with some social corrections, and have a hard time distinguishing themselves on any point from other parties. Usually the exit of social-democrat voters turn fascist. At least in 2 countries where I've witnessed this: in Belgium, the city of Antwerp was the social-democrat bulwark, and is now around 40% or so fascist, and the north of France was typically socialist (= social-democrat in france) and now turns massively Le Pen. This somehow shows that there's no deep ideology fixed to them.

I agree.

The main problem with social-democrat PARTIES is that they have a historical link to the worker's unions, which is a bunch of self-serving hypocrits.

 

[Smurf]

Why not ? That's the main point. If "acting like a socialist" would seem to me to be the best thing to do on monday, and "acting like an anarchist" on friday, because the problem I'm confronted with and my mood is different, why not ? This is exactly "my ideology" :-)

Well, congratulations then? What are you going to call it? Unpredictabilitism? Changerism?

 

[SOS2008]

Here's an example: I became a member of my HOA, along with a couple of other residents who agreed to join too. We found that the property management co. had been lying about almost everything, and that we were flat broke and in need of much work to maintain infrastructure. It's a good thing people got involved and volunteered hours of time and effort, because things only seemed to be going along okay.

If you want a republic with a democratic way of life (i.e., by the people, for the people) that means citizen participation. If you don't want to be bothered, than feel free to move to a dictatorship, monarchy or some such country. The self absorbed characteristic of the spoiled and lazy--often younger generations is pathetic if you ask me. Now I'm not feeling so bad about leaving a polluted, over populated, war-mongering world to you.

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with helping others, but you should help your own first. Talk about unpatriotic.

 

[Smurf]

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with helping others, but you should help your own first. Talk about unpatriotic.

Talk about being descriminatory.

 

[SOS2008]

Talk about being descriminatory.

How so? Are you saying you would let your own family go hungry while you feed your neighbors?

 

[Evo]

Well, congratulations then? What are you going to call it? Unpredictabilitism? Changerism?

Some people don't care to label themselves, or be part of a group that thinks in one set way. Some people prefer to take a balanced look at each individual problem and solve it in the best possible way. I don't see any value in being on any particular side and throwing rocks and stones at another group to make myself feel better about my own beliefs. I see way too much of it.

 

[Smurf]

How so? Are you saying you would let your own family go hungry while you feed your neighbors?

I'm just saying there's no reason why I shouldn't.

 

[Smurf]

Some people don't care to label themselves, or be part of a group that thinks in one set way. Some people prefer to take a balanced look at each individual problem and solve it in the best possible way. I don't see any value in being on any particular side and throwing rocks and stones at another group to make myself feel better about my own beliefs. I see way too much of it.

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

 

[Archon]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

I have a problem with the words "one set way." It seems to me that there's a difference between saying that the solution to all problems is antibiotics, and saying that the solution to some problems is antibiotics and other problems, (like war, or crop shortages, etc) other things. The first is thinking in "one set way," while the second is refusing to apply the same set of beliefs (antibioticism ) to all problems you encounter. If you don't base all of the solutions (to problems relevant to your ideology) that you pursue on a single set of beliefs, then you aren't really a true follower of that single ideology. Hence, you can't accurately be called an antibioticist if you don't proclaim that antibiotics are the solution to all illnesses.

 

[Townsend]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

So a baby thinks in one set way and he/she cannot change that one set way? So we are all born thinking the way we think and we cannot change? In case you didn't notice that is precisely what you're saying Smurf...

In fact...that post is complete non-sense in every possible way. How on Earth does anyone come up with an original idea if they can only think in one set way? How is it that the political parties of today no longer stand for the things they stood for when they started out, or even from fifty year ago if people are only capable of thinking in one set way?

There is so many holes in what you're saying I just don't see how you can not see them...

 

[edward]

Nonsense. Everyone thinks in one set way. It is the nature of the human mind. Merely refusing to fall under a label does not make a person any more capable of taking a balanced look at a problem and creating a solution. Unless you can make an argument that your view of the world is personal and unique, I see no reason why you are any different from a person who does identify with your so-called 'label'. (a piece of terminology used millions of times from the individuality movement which originally gave it it's negative connotation)

I would find it extremely difficult to look at a problem in a thorough and balanced manner if I was already predisposed to solving it in a predetermined (one set way) manner.

 

[zeronem]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

 

[Smurf]

I would find it extremely difficult to look at a problem in a thorough and balanced manner if I was already predisposed to solving it in a predetermined (one set way) manner.

I'm sure most people would

 

[edward]

I'm sure most people would

A lot of people have become sheeple.

 

[Smurf]

So a baby thinks in one set way and he/she cannot change that one set way?

I have never said anything of that sort.

So we are all born thinking the way we think and we cannot change?

I have never said anything of that sort

In case you didn't notice that is precisely what you're saying Smurf...

I never said anything of that sort. You will not find, anywhere in the last 3 pages, have I ever said that someone can not and does not change. In fact, if you look back you will find a specific example of my self in which I describe that I changed into an anarchist. I think if you look back over my post records you will find I'm far leaning onto the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Again, I have no said anything of that sort, you are making ice cream out of pizza.

There is so many holes in what you're saying I just don't see how you can not see them...

Frankly I don't see how you do see them.

 

[Smurf]

A lot of people have become sheeple.

People always have been.

 

[Townsend]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

I have read those papers...he wrote those papers to support the ratification of the constitution. Madison was the architect of the constitution and he saw a need to protect individual liberty from faction. To that end he succeeded however what he missed, and later he even changed his position on, was the need for a balance between liberty and democracy.

It is what makes up the difference between republicans and democrats. You see contrary to their title liberals are in favor the voice of the people. Doing what is for the collective good. The name liberal is non-sense from FDR New Deal...conservatives are those who favor (at least at one time) the protection of personal liberty...

The republican party started by Thomas Jefferson was actually the start of the democratic party. Weird how names swap around so much huh?

Any how...a democrat today is not what a democrat used to be and the same is true for republicans...

democrats today are a much more socialist than they were just 100 years ago and I believe that was Regan's main plate form...that we wanted to undo a lot of the socialist programs that came from the New Deal...(help me out if I am getting any of this wrong...)

Anyhow...In my opinion those papers don't readily address these topics. Not that they're a bad read or anything...

 

[Smurf]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

Okay. I will. For anyone else who wants to you can find them here:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

 

[SOS2008]

I'de recommend all of you read James Madison's, "The Federalist, No. 10" and "The Federalist, No. 51" other wise known as the Federlist Papers. I think a lot of the issues being conflicted upon in this thread are addressed on James Madison's Genius Papers.

Unfortunately, like the Bible, such documents are always interpreted to fit each individual's agenda.

 

[zeronem]

Unfortunately, like the Bible, such documents are always interpreted to fit each individual's agenda.

That's my point exactly. I think one of the main problems these days is that everyone is always arguing their own view in Politics. Maybe people should have more objective conversations on Politics rather then subjective conversing. It's about time everyone talk objectively about these situations. The more subjective we come about politics the more it becomes harder to define what exactly is liberalism and what is conservativism. A Professor I knew always mentioned that the terms liberal and conservative have been so overused that they have lost meaning.

 

[Townsend]

That's my point exactly. I think one of the main problems these days is that everyone is always arguing their own view in Politics. Maybe people should have more objective conversations on Politics rather then subjective conversing. It's about time everyone talk objectively about these situations. The more subjective we come about politics the more it becomes harder to define what exactly is liberalism and what is conservativism. A Professor I knew always mentioned that the terms liberal and conservative have been so overused that they have lost meaning.

Overused? They lost there meaning when the terms were used to change the public perception of the ideals for which they stood. More often then not the terms that were related to those ideals had nothing to do with the actual ideals. Liberalism for example has NOTHING to do with the democratic party...NOTHING. It was what the conservative party called themselves and what they stood for (at one time, not so much any more). Since FDR wanted to have a right wing perception on his left wing ideas he started to call his ideals liberalism...

Conservatives needed to make sure their ideals were not being confused with those of FDR and so they conceded the name and adopted conservative instead.

 

[loseyourname]

If you want a republic with a democratic way of life (i.e., by the people, for the people) that means citizen participation. If you don't want to be bothered, than feel free to move to a dictatorship, monarchy or some such country. The self absorbed characteristic of the spoiled and lazy--often younger generations is pathetic if you ask me.

Oh please, why do you have to make this a generational thing? How many generations before the current generation of youth were really that involved in politics? Have you even been to a college campus on either coast in the last fifteen years? You'll be bombarded with people asking you to get involved in some cause or other, to sign a petition, donate some money, or attend a meeting.

Personally, I don't advocate that kind of lifestyle, but I can understand where those people are coming from. Everyone needs meaningful work of some kind. I like scholarship, they like activism.

I also don't see why you need to insult the self-absorbed. Not all people are as social as others, and some just have cares that don't lie so much in the public sphere. Let them be; live and and let live. If some hermit raising sheep in southern New Zealand is happy and doesn't feel the need to change the world, more power to him. If we were all more like him, maybe the world wouldn't have so many problems to begin with.

And BTW, there is nothing wrong with helping others, but you should help your own first. Talk about unpatriotic.

It's hard to agree with that. Emotionally, sure, we're always going to be inclined to help those we identify with more than those we don't. But if we step back and take an objective look at things, it seems to me that we should help those who most need our help, regardless of how similar they are to us, or how closely related. When people learn to look beyond some line on a map and view the entire globe as their community, the world will take a huge step forward.

 

[vanesch]

Well, congratulations then? What are you going to call it? Unpredictabilitism? Changerism?

I don't know, you're the *ism specialist

 

[vanesch]

Some people don't care to label themselves, or be part of a group that thinks in one set way. Some people prefer to take a balanced look at each individual problem and solve it in the best possible way. I don't see any value in being on any particular side and throwing rocks and stones at another group to make myself feel better about my own beliefs. I see way too much of it.

Ah, there are other reasonable people out there

 

[Smurf]

I don't know, you're the *ism specialist

Sarcasm (not sure if you got it or not). Merely because you act like a socialist one day, does not make you a socialist. It does not mean you've jumped from one ideology to another in a few seconds, it just means you arrived at the same conclusions as a socialist would in response to the given problem. As I've said before identifying with an ideology is not agreeing on a set of solutions, but agreeing on a world view. Your world view doesn't change from day to day unless your have a really bad addiction to LSD.

So, if you acted like a socialist one day, and an anarchist another day it's not because you're a moderate and don't have a world view, it's just that you're world view overlapped with socialism one day and anarchism the next. You still have a world view - one that, in all likely hood, members of a certain ideological label will agree with. You now identify with that ideology. (or you're in one of the last 2 groups and refuse to identify).

Later, if your world view changes (usually happens when you do something outside of your usual routine in life) you will find you no longer agree with that certain ideology. You may agree with capitalism, anarchism, or minarchism (You'd get along better with LYN then).

What do you think?

 

[vanesch]

As I said, by definition everybody who is going to make judgements on what things should happen has a way (an algorithm) to arrive at his judgements. You are claiming something trivial, that everybody has a way to arrive at judgements. Yes. Of course. If that's what an ideology is all about, the word looses its meaning, because EVERYTHING is an ideology. But what one usually understands about it is a kind of grand view of how much better the world would be if we just did *this*. THAT does not have to be accepted by everybody. You seem to deny the existence of that non-acceptance.

But I'll try to put all my cards on the table, and you will tell me what my ideology is. If stuff is missing, just ask me.

*) Human variability: First of all, I consider human beings as drawn out of a very large statistical sample, and there are peace-loving and violent ones, smart and stupid ones, honest and dishonest ones etc... There is part of this statistical variation which is probably environment-induced, and there is part of it that is inherent. So already I don't believe in any rule that says that behaviour of people will fundamentally change if we change the structure of society, or in any a priori equality of humans.

*) I'm moderately against violence. I think that if one can find a reasonable way to solve a problem without violence, that this should have priority. Only in last instance, one should ressort to violence. But I can take it that such problems occur, so in that case, one should use violence. I am also convinced that you cannot convince a certain part of the set of human beings to act like this, so the only thing you can do is to have superior violence available (from a state, say), to enforce this behaviour.

*) I think people act essentially in a hedonist way: seek pleasure, avoid pain. However, whatever is "pleasure" can be very very very varied. For some it is leading a luxury life, for others it is feeling good because they do good for others, still for others it is to have their name written in history etc...

*) I think it is important to organize things in such a way that most people are moderately happy.

*) I think that people should be free to act unless that gives problems with other humans. So, a priori, if something is not forbidden, it is allowed, and not the other way around.

*) I'm a believer in science, in a very broad sense (learning to know the world). I think it is the only useful thing that humans do, apart from keeping themselves moderately happy. I could go into the reasons for my belief, but it would take long.

*) I think humanity is not here to last, so whatever we do, it is of not that much importance. As such, I don't give any absolute value to "human rights" or "human life" or the like. It is just because we happen to be the dominant species on our planet right now that we think of ourselves to be superior or special. Nevertheless, taking on these rules of behaviour can lead to more happiness for most of us, so it is probably a good strategy to follow, but it has no intrinsic value apart from the strategy to bring happiness.

You tell me what ideology that is.

What are the consequences of the above ?
- clearly I advocate the existence of a state, because it limits violence between individuals.
- I didn't say anything about HOW that state should make decisions and rules, except for the fact that it should respect the a priori freedom of the individual. Whether it is a democracy, a dictatorship, a monarchy ... or whatever form doesn't A PRIORI matter. Its structure IS A PROBLEM ONE SHOULD SOLVE, and not something that one should impose a priori. The solution must come from the axiom that one should seek moderate happiness for most humans. If it is a monarchy that brings this, go for the King. If it is a republic, go for the president. If it is a highly decentralized structure, go for it. But don't forget that we also should advance science !
- I didn't say anything about HOW to organize economic activity. If just giving people property rights (and hence instore capitalism) will do, go for capitalism. If property is only owned by the state, and if that makes most people moderately happy, go for communism. And don't forget that we also should advance science.

Then HOW should we organize economy ? Well, we should consider different models, different ways of instoring rules, and have the statistical lot of different human beings act out on it (determine the predictable dynamics it will induce). After letting it evolve a bit according to its equations of motion, we should then find out whether this leads to happy people or not. The one that leads to most happiness for most people, and did produce the best advances in science, is the best method. I can already tell you that it is not going to be pure capitalism or pure communism.

So, tell me, I'm what of an *ist ?

 

[SOS2008]

Oh please, why do you have to make this a generational thing? How many generations before the current generation of youth were really that involved in politics? Have you even been to a college campus on either coast in the last fifteen years? You'll be bombarded with people asking you to get involved in some cause or other, to sign a petition, donate some money, or attend a meeting.

True there is always more activism on college campuses, but just comparing Vietnam to now--it's people like Cindy Sheehan who is seen protesting Iraq. At least people got out and voted in larger percentages last election, though the reasons of a divided nation is a sad one.

I also don't see why you need to insult the self-absorbed.

What was I thinking? You're right, being self-absorbed is a good thing to be.

It's hard to agree with that. Emotionally, sure, we're always going to be inclined to help those we identify with more than those we don't. But if we step back and take an objective look at things, it seems to me that we should help those who most need our help, regardless of how similar they are to us, or how closely related. When people learn to look beyond some line on a map and view the entire globe as their community, the world will take a huge step forward.

Please refer to posts in the taxation thread and posts in the thread on the economy and trade agreements. You can't help others if you don't take care of yourself first, and at this time we need to focus on getting our own house in order.

You realize you contradict yourself with these two points, don't you?