Philosophy of Government of everyone concerned with Politics

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2009, 11:06 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Get close to affecting insitutional reform and such impulses will surely change.

I am not going to get close to affecting institutional reform though. In fact, most of us aren't close to affecting institutional reform.

I mean, here's the different versions I can see you attempting to promote:
1) If you got into power, you would put people into power such that they can enact your vision.
2) If you got into power, you couldn't resist the urge to use that power.
3) If you got into power, you would have to corrupt your message such that the power would be used.

I think most people would grant 1. The issue is 2 and/or 3. I don't think anyone can argue that 2 must be universally true though, why? Because that requires having a uniform "human" to base one's ideas off of, and such a creature doesn't exist. 3 is more of an institutional argument though, and I am not sure you really are making an argument like that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2009, 11:09 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Bob Barr certainly changed tones in and outside of government.

I don't pay much attention to Bob Barr. "libertarian" doesn't mean "Libertarian party". Not only that, but frankly, I really don't consider Bob Barr representative of libertarianism, he is too right wing from everything I've heard.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Aug 2009, 6:57 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Government is the Problem, unless I’m (or we’re) in charge!

This is a great way to explain the ultimate hypocrisy consistent with anyone who’s every critiqued government or the very notion of government. They weren’t criticizing government as an abstract institution, they were criticizing the people in charge, who they presumed to be either less competent or less virtuous then themselves.

Nonsense. I've no interest in governing, and am quite certain that I'd be a piss-poor leader, yet I still criticize government.


Yet, ultimately, I'm sure you think someone sharing similar values would make a good leader or ruling clique.

Actually, my political views are ones where I do not desire to impose my values on anyone else. My values would involve a world without drugs, alcohol, or tobacco and where everyone was a Presbyterian and foolish or hateful opinions would not be aired. The policy that I would like to see is one where drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are all legal and relatively unrestricted, there is complete freedom of religion, and no censorship. My values should absolutely not be pushed on the rest of the world, because they are my values and not yours or anyone else's.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

18 Aug 2009, 7:12 am

Least government = best government.

Flows from the simple fact that government eventually disintegrates into a bully that takes from the people and gives little to nothing back. We need government for social structure, but we should only tolerate it in as much as we absolutely need it. We should always deny it's inclination to grow larger and assume greater roles in our lives.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Aug 2009, 8:47 am

Sand wrote:
The wryly amusing example is the recent Bush administration that decried any government as being totally flawed and went on to prove it by being monstrously incompetent.


True. But far less incompetent than the late and unlamented Jimmy Carter administration. Now there was a total looser.

ruveyn