Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why are almost all political parties hypocritical in this ?

Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

30 May 2012, 8:37 pm

Why do people war back and forth over who is right? And why do we want to force someone into something they want no part of? Why instead of voting a capitalist , socialist, or any ist you can think of that takes away other peoples right so you can feel like you got your "agenda" done, instead let other people do what they want and suffer any consequences of it, and you do what you want. If the bugger tries to mess with your property, let him have it. Otherwise, leave them alone! It just seems like people grab for power. At the end of the day, how does that help the average joe? How does going to war with someone you never even met helping you prosper? How is caring what someone does in their bedroom helping you become anymore moral? How is forcing someone to pay for someone else's medical, loss (in the case of a business), or food going to ever get people to show empathy for those who really need it? I guess my question is, why can people leave other peoples business alone??? Why do we need to control other people through politics and other hierarchy? If people put as much effort into running their own lives as they did other peoples, we would have a better society.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

30 May 2012, 9:21 pm

It sounds sounds like you are less interested in letting everyone follow their own ideology and more interested in having them follow your own ideology of libertarianism.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

30 May 2012, 9:35 pm

Here is one example why this simplistic notion can never work:

http://www.alternet.org/news/148407/ayn ... age=entire



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

30 May 2012, 11:20 pm

What I am saying is why not just leave people to their own business? If someone wants to smoke pot, leave them alone. If someone wants to practice some weird religion so be it. I guess I am not arguing so much for libertarianism in as much panarchism. Why do people keep wasting there time bashing this side or that side and just decide to believe what they believe and that is it. It seems like whether it is social conservatives or war hawks on the right or nanny state people on the left (or any one in between) seems to want to control each other. Why can't people on the right allow gays to live in whatever relationships they want and liberals live up to their name and allow the church to decide for itself if it wants to allow it? All I am saying is if you want social democracy or whatever, why do you need everyone in on it? Why not allow other people to practice what they want? I guess the question is why do we continue to force people to do what we want? Why not let everyone do what they want? Eliminate a governance monopoly, eliminate borders, and allow for voluntary cooperation. Why do we need to defeat other peoples ideas? Why not allow communist to practice communism, same for fascist, anarchist, capitalist, and any other ist. Why does governance have to be a zero sum game where one person wins and everyone else looses? Why can't everyone win?



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

31 May 2012, 12:26 am

edgewaters wrote:
Here is one example why this simplistic notion can never work:

http://www.alternet.org/news/148407/ayn ... age=entire

"Limited government only sounds good as an abstraction, but the principles of the free market won’t get you too far when your house is on fire."

Lol. Just lol. If you're going to cite an event as an argument against the "free market", you might want to make sure the perpetrator was private enterprise and not an agent of the state, in this case the local fire department.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

31 May 2012, 5:45 pm

This is why I am a very strong political indpenent I belong to no political party.



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

01 Jun 2012, 8:15 am

can't blame you



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

01 Jun 2012, 9:36 am

zacb wrote:
What I am saying is why not just leave people to their own business? If someone wants to smoke pot, leave them alone. If someone wants to practice some weird religion so be it. I guess I am not arguing so much for libertarianism in as much panarchism. Why do people keep wasting there time bashing this side or that side and just decide to believe what they believe and that is it. It seems like whether it is social conservatives or war hawks on the right or nanny state people on the left (or any one in between) seems to want to control each other. Why can't people on the right allow gays to live in whatever relationships they want and liberals live up to their name and allow the church to decide for itself if it wants to allow it? All I am saying is if you want social democracy or whatever, why do you need everyone in on it? Why not allow other people to practice what they want? I guess the question is why do we continue to force people to do what we want? Why not let everyone do what they want? Eliminate a governance monopoly, eliminate borders, and allow for voluntary cooperation. Why do we need to defeat other peoples ideas? Why not allow communist to practice communism, same for fascist, anarchist, capitalist, and any other ist. Why does governance have to be a zero sum game where one person wins and everyone else looses? Why can't everyone win?


Everyone "cant win" for an obvious reason.

Society can only be one way at a time.
A country cant be monarchist, democratic, totalitarian, non totalitarian,nazi, anarchist, libertarian, and theocratic, secular, capitalist, communist, all at once.

So you have to choose one thing, and discard the others.

So I dont see what you're complaining about.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jun 2012, 12:42 pm

Political parties are like lepers. Unclean! Unclean!

ruveyn



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

01 Jun 2012, 5:27 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Everyone "cant win" for an obvious reason.

Society can only be one way at a time.
A country cant be monarchist, democratic, totalitarian, non totalitarian,nazi, anarchist, libertarian, and theocratic, secular, capitalist, communist, all at once.

So you have to choose one thing, and discard the others.

So I dont see what you're complaining about.

This. You can't have a society where one group of people refuses to accept private property (eg: everything is publicly owned), another accepts only the concept of personal property (eg: people only can own small things like books, cars, and furniture--the rest is publicly owned), and yet another believes that private property is a fundamental human right (eg: one should be able to own whatever they like and can afford to buy, including land, infrastructure, buildings, machines, animals, commodities, electronic representations of commodities, etc.--public property is does not exist or exists only minimally).



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

01 Jun 2012, 9:49 pm

I guess my point is that why not make government more akin to mutual aid than one monopoly fits all. Thr reason why all these isms don't work is because when you force everyone to do something, you are likely to have someone who lack motivation to make that system work. So why not let people contribute to what they have motivation to do, we as a world would be more happy , productive, and efficient. Why don't we question the status qou? Why not create a new tommorow?



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

01 Jun 2012, 9:56 pm

One more thing. Why fo there have to be borders? Why not just allow people to control their property and thatis it?



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

01 Jun 2012, 10:15 pm

Nobody is apolitical. Politics is the fabric of all of the power structures around us. What you are doing is calling for an end to certain kinds of discourse. What could be more political than that?

Your libertarianism pretends to be "common sense" that we all share, but it isn't. Your unquestioned notion of "property" is an ideological fiction.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

01 Jun 2012, 10:28 pm

zacb wrote:
One more thing. Why fo there have to be borders? Why not just allow people to control their property and thatis it?

This isn't remotely apolitical. You are proposing libertarian-esque concepts. Communism can not function if there is private property, so essentially what you are proposing is libertarianism rather than allowing everyone to pursue their own ideological agenda.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

05 Jun 2012, 6:41 pm

zacb wrote:
I guess my point is that why not make government more akin to mutual aid than one monopoly fits all. Thr reason why all these isms don't work is because when you force everyone to do something, you are likely to have someone who lack motivation to make that system work. So why not let people contribute to what they have motivation to do, we as a world would be more happy , productive, and efficient. Why don't we question the status qou? Why not create a new tommorow?


So you want to illiminate politics, and replace it with politics.

Create "a new tomorrow" by doing exactly what?

Can you do us a favor, and actually say something that actually makes sense as a statement?

_____

Your proposal to eliminate borders is the only thing youve said that is a specific proposal that makes any sense as a statement.

Assuming you mean international boundries: there are only two ways that could be done. One is to eliminate all governments. The other is to have the entire world have one World government.
So which thing are you proposing?



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

05 Jun 2012, 6:50 pm

Burzum wrote:
Lol. Just lol. If you're going to cite an event as an argument against the "free market", you might want to make sure the perpetrator was private enterprise and not an agent of the state, in this case the local fire department.


The last time fire services were private, in Rome, they showed up and negotiated a price as the house burned. But the example clearly illustrates that even a slight movement in that direction is absurd and can't work in the real world. There are no closer examples in modern times because nobody would be stupid enough to privatize and deregulate fire services.