The Bill to re-instate the draft now in Congress

Quote from rgelite:


The Religious Right, having hijacked the Republican Party, always feels guilty about protecting individual rights (real ones) and thus continually compromises with The Left. As they will again one day, I predict, with some form of "palatable choice" in mandatory service.

Cheers.
More...

rgelite, great to see you here - ET needs all the articulate thinkers it can get.

I think I have to disagree with your assessment of the religious right and the republican party though.

For one thing, fiscal conservatives / social liberals are getting more traction these days, not less. Look at Schwarzenegger in California as a prime example. And if you look at past trends, guys like Ralph Reed and Gary Bower (sp?) used to consider themselves power brokers; now they are has beens.

I also disagree with your assessment of religious people as feeling guilty and thus giving into left wing sympathies. Being a "god idiot" myself, as some obnoxious posters have called Christians on this board, I'm speaking from inside the camp.

The strongest "infringement" issue for the religious right these days is abortion, which has a legitimate context that can be understood from a libertarian perspective. Pro-lifers simply believe that the issue of preserving human life is of a higher value order than the issue of property ownership or personal sovereignty. There is a limited pool of rights, and when two rights come into direct conflict, the value order must be preserved.

You can disagree with whether a fetus is a legitimate citizen, but the point is that the debate hinges on whether we are dealing with an intersection of two individuals' rights or not. If we are, then there is no question abortion is wrong- you are not allowed to kill a fellow human being for the sake of personal sovereignty just because their existence infringes upon you.

A number of libertarians are pro-life for this same reason: because the child is viewed as having inalienable rights as well as the mother. Not to mention that it is philosophically inconsistent to assign rights based on physical location (outside vs inside the womb) or stage of development (breathing air instead of fluid).

But putting that aside, my main point is that I think the religious right contingent is more libertarian in nature than you might realize. For one thing, a majority of "right wing Christians" would be happy to completely abolish the department of education and pretty much end welfare. Tomorrow. Private schools could handle the job fine, and people who need help could get it from the church or private foundation of their choice. The government is the one who muscled the church out of caring for the poor in the first place; if the government were removed tomorrow, no one would starve. Private organizations would step in immediately. Christians also by and large want their taxes lowered dramatically, and they are strong on personal accountability. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" is not a left wing tenet.

The reason that the religious right is vocal - and frustrated - is because the left is playing a rigged game. They like to claim that they have no agenda, when in reality they do have an agenda and they are pressing it hard. The solution that libertarians would prefer - smaller, limited government with much less interference - is one that the "religious right" would prefer as well. They see issues like abortion as a protection of rights rather than an infringement upon them. In regards to censorship, a similar game is being played: the post modernists say if you don't like it, turn it off... and then they soak the culture in filth so thoroughly that you can't turn it off, it's everywhere. I think even atheists would agree that something is wrong when lunatics in Berkeley are allowed to masturbate in the street for freedom of expression.

When you have a vacuum, you don't necessarily know what's going to fill it. This board is a perfect example. There are intelligent, articulate people in every camp on this board - and there are also mouth breathing assholes and borderline sociopaths. To be "free of religion's chains" doesn't necessarily mean being enlightened or rational. It can often mean quite the opposite - susceptibility to whatever toxic, deluded nihilism that comes along. Better to find common ground on an issue by issue basis without using metaphysics as a litmus test.
 
The libertarians are drawn as extremists by the other parties Somehow I agree that they are sometimes extremists although I seem to borrow much to libertarians I'm not. In fact I have decided that I have to support none party although I"m republican in color but above all I'm very engaged to some principles notably truth and integrity. I think that vote is useless and serve only for the purpose of making people believe that thet have some weight in decisions whereas they have none. It's just more efficient than controlling them by dictature and it's better for people also. It's a ploutocratie of opinions driven by medias not a democracy of free thoughts people. I don't think it's possible, reality is that only an elite can govern and I am for elitism but not for an elite that is corrupted. It is not obligatory that they become corrupted if the people were more conscious of their own responsabilities. Their corruption is the mirror of the people somehow.

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Yes, there are many of us. However most lack the integrity to just vote Libertarian, instead of picking the lesser of two evils.
More...
 
Quote from harrytrader:

The libertarians are drawn as extremists by the other parties Somehow I agree that they are sometimes extremists although I seem to borrow much to libertarians I'm not.
More...


There is a distinction made between lower case libertarians and capital L Libertarians.

In a very brief nutshell, capital L Libertarians want to abolish all forms of government, disband the military, and let free enterprise handle everything. They are extremely idealistic and have a faith in human nature that borders on the irrational (in my opinion). They think that by banishing government they will solve the problem, instead of realizing that bad government is an effect, not a cause, of the real problem.

Lower case libertarians consider this too extreme. They recognize that certain forms of government are a necessary evil and will always exist; they also recognize there is a limited pool of rights and thus a need to occasionally compromise individual rights when values come into direct conflict. Their desire is to keep government's size and scope as limited as possible, preferably run by term limited individuals who see it as their moral duty to fulfill an unpleasant service rather than a source of prestige and power.

In order for the lower case libertarians' vision of government to work, you need access to people with strong moral principles, the ability to resist temptation for personal gain, and a willingness to serve others for the greater good. Otherwise, what motives would they have for serving except the wrong ones?

p.s. harry you've got to lose that bull and bear graphic, it just bloats the threads
 
Quote from darkhorse:

In order for the lower case libertarians' vision of government to work, you need access to people with strong moral principles, the ability to resist temptation for personal gain, and a willingness to serve others for the greater good. Otherwise, what motives would they have for serving except the wrong ones?
More...

First, thank you for the welcome, darkhorse. As mytwocents recently wrote on another thread, it's sometimes surprising how much time can be spent on ET, and in chat. I see that, too, so I'll have to make this brief. You'll laugh when you see its length but trust me, it's brief.

As I previously wrote in my bullet points disputing any so-called rationale that advocates compulsory service, it's fact that each individual has his or her own values hierarchy unique to them; that among individuals, these various values hierarchies overlap; and that rational adults know how to sift through the essentials between them and the chaff. To use a whimsical example, you and I know that food is essential; whether it's Chinese or Italian is not.

So you and I will appear as partners on many issues. Many of the points you made were valid behaviorly; we would be on the same aisle of many of them politically. Our actions to further our life would be the same. We share many values. We would pick up a gun to defend ourselves. We want our children educated as we see fit. We'd like to see people judged on their character and not on inessential characteristics. We believe that which we earn is ours. We are generous with our time and money. We love the young and want them to learn everything they can. We don't kick dogs, and we refrain from it not because of some law but because we know and feel deep in our hearts that life is special. Etc.

We do differ on some issues, however. For example, in every person's right to own his or her own body. In that case, you have also clearly delineated the line and taken a stand based on your morality. I respect you for that. Yet my view of it is equally clear and has the benefit of having no contradictions. (I realize your point about abortion was a side issue, so I will honor your framing it so and also keep my remarks brief. I make them, not to get into another human rights debate, but merely to serve my overall point that our values hierarchies have some overlap but not total overlap.) On human rights, my conclusions are based in reality. The potential is not the actual. A fetus is not a baby/child. As it is physically part of the woman, it is her's to do with as she deems fit. No one else has a moral right to oblige her to do otherwise.

To cede that point is to cede the principle that in some cases others have the right to dispose of our lives as they see fit. I'll never buy into that. In any compromise between food and poison, in this case between an individual's right to own his or her own life and the attempt by some to co-opt that for their own religious views, it is always food that suffers. In human rights, individual rights, it is always the real, actual, individuated person that suffers from compromise.

But getting back to essentials in the context of this reply, you have proven my other points in your most recent post. You are indeed articulate, too, and I am delighted as you are that there are several of us committed to genteel discourse. So on some issues we do agree. That there is a need for government, clearly. That living in a community where people have strong moral principles is vital (and for the reasons that "I Missed The Boat" suggests).

But I can see that your religion pervades your politics and, in doing so, acts to the detriment of others. You use religious phrases (or Kantian, if you prefer: "The greatest good is that which enriches the doer the least.") such as "resist temptation for personal gain." That's an error. Had you phrased it, "resist temptation for fraudulent personal gain," we'd be chatting in lockstep. But you didn't because, as a former Catholic myself decades ago, I know that altruism (self-sacrifice) is seen as the highest good by many of the traditional and popular Faiths.

So too your admonition for a "willingness to serve the greater good." Again, that's pure Kant, pure Christianity. And as I've posted in other threads, it is essentially dishonest. I'm sorry to put in such terms, because I know practically you are a good person--you would not steal, you would not kill, you would not cheat, you have compassion for others less fortunate. But, you miss the fact that it is your selfish choices, including the choice not to be selfish which you claim you hold above all else, that is wholly disingenuous.

How can I say that? Simple. Because you want what you want, just like me. You chose your belief system and, derived from it, your values. Or else, you got it unthinkingly by default, handed down from generations. Either way, as an adult now it is your choice. You choose self-sacrifice as among the highest goods in your belief hierarchy (ironic, isn't it?). So one of the fundamental differences between us is that my philosophy doesn't allow me to hate my nature. I do not believe I was born into sin. I do not believe that when I act in my own rational self-interest (NOT self-indulgence) that I am morally depraved. Do I sin? Yes, but against myself. Against my dreams, my ideals, my values. And I know when I do. And I feel bad when I do. And, like you, I strive to be better when I do. And I make some of the same mistakes over again, too. Like you.

But I don't posture (I'm sorry if that's an emotive term) that I am here for "the greater good" or that I must "resist the temptation to enrich myself." I pursue my values in ways that do not harm others and I do not apolgize for being self-interested. My self interest, by the way, includes my own life in its normal lifespan and then, naturally in concentric circles of commitment, those who are family, friends, neighbors, community, nation, species, life, planet. I try my best not to ever invert the order, either.

We are so alike, you and I. We understand the dangers of those who claim no distinctions between us and any other living thing, the nihilists among us. We know that smut devalues a genuine and beautiful (perhaps the most) feeling a human being can experience in intimacy. We have learned through the years that work is how one gets ahead, smart work, not necessarily hard work, but when there's both then there's a bounty of riches especially in the United States. I could go on, but I think I've made my point that we are brothers.

Perhaps you see me as Cain to your Abel. I wouldn't characterize it that way, but I won't disabuse you of that thought either. It is your own to have or not. Either way, you will see me standing with you on many issues; against you on others. But I'll always honor and respect your life and your choices, as long as they do not harm me and mine.

Best regards.
 
Sorry, guy, I'm still editing. I've rephrased a lot of what didn't do my own talent justice, and hope you'll forgive me some of the terms that the first draft employed.

I will read your reply when I'm done, but feel free to edit your own post after I'm finished. I believe there's an hour to get that done before the post gets locked.

I have to do chores; actually I'm over budget on my time here today. So I won't be able to pick up with you for a while.

By the way, your reply got posted THREE times. You might want to delete two of them while you still can. :)

Best to you.
 
Quote from rgelite:


By the way, your reply got posted THREE times. You might want to delete two of them while you still can. :)
More...

Strange, thanks- I deleted the dupes, trying again:

When I referred to personal gain, I did indeed mean "fraudulent" personal gain within the context of government. I wholly support the idea of a government pay structure where quality of service is rewarded by financial gain in proportion to what was accomplished.

I still see the significant problem, though, of placing public power in the hands of those who are tempted to use it "rationally" to their own private ends beyond what is acceptable. For you personally, fraudulent personal gain is repellant. But why couldn't fraud or dishonesty be perfectly acceptable to another objectivist ruled by his own set of values?

The problem with making each man the measure of his own morality is that by this light we have no room to condemn the cretins among us; we can only restrain them or assert dominance by force, as one animal dominates another.

My personal goals are just as aligned with self satisfaction as yours, in my opinion, and they do not include self flagellation or a desire to abase myself unnecessarily. I recognize my sin nature because I see the results of it every day, and it repulses me in the same way that internal weakness is repulsive to an individual that desires to be strong. I know that being a man takes character, resolve and will, and being refined by trials / overcoming weaknesses is part of that process.

Let me also clarify that I do not see altruism for its own sake as the highest good. I am not an ascetic, and I do not see service to others as my ultimate calling. I see service to God as my highest calling, but fortunately my best interests are in complete alignment with this calling as it was the very reason I was created. Those who believe Christianity is about marginalizing or suppressing life rather than living to the fullest potential of excellence do not know the God I know.

I strongly suspect that 90% of American Christians (I can't speak for those in other countries) don't actually understand the full implications of what they believe or whom they are serving. Those who practice altruism for the sake of appearance or internal self justification are actuallly perverting the true nobility of the concept: properly motivated altruism is about acting on behalf of an individual or group because you truly care about them and it gives you fulfillment to serve them, not because you have some hidden motivation other than this. God looks with favor on properly ordered motivations and does not frown on self fulfillment.

You sound like you are very well aligned in terms of your philosophy, your outlook and your goals. That's no mean feat, and it's something I put the highest value on as well.

I think the main difference between us is that I believe there is a God and that He is worthy of adoration and service, whereas you believe no such God exists.

Within the context of this divergency, I believe my actions are quite arguably as rational, intelligible and self-motivated as yours. We are both adhering to our path of reason as rationally as we know how.

Abel to your Cain,

darkhorse
 
Whew. Rather than read what you've written so far, I'm going to coordinate our efforts--me to get my chores done, you to re-read my final version, and then post your best effort as it strikes you to do. I'll read what you post later this week.

Have a great rest of the weekend. And good trading this week!
 
Quote from rgelite:

Again, you state that everyone who has chosen to be in this country has to understand the need to protect themselves, with the true implication that such defense against outside aggressors necessarily and correctly involves the national military.

If that premise is indeed the one you hold, then your conclusion that compulsory service is needed is illogical. You yourself have admitted that those who choose to remain here as Americans understand what they need to do. Even if that premise is valid, you still want to draft them. You still want to tell who, what to do, when, and how. Because you're still focused on what others do, not on simply doing what you want to do, and let others do what they want to do. Your last proffered reason: They must be drafted because others will be afraid to be left out in the wind if they end up enlisting by themselves. Good grief.

And if you want to quote history, let's not be selective. The United States was founded by volunteers, who succeeded against the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. And from there all the way to the present, I don't recall one sentence read where Pat Tillman considered for a moment what others thought about his decision. A real American hero was Pat, in the mold of the very first Americans. He saw what was important to him; he went and did it. And man, did he.

It's the same error you made, but I politely omitted pointing out in my prior post because I thought my reply would encompass it as well, when you stated that you agreed with the premise that politicians think they own citizens, but then didn't view that dynamic as a clear and present danger to those very citizens. Apparently, and now I see consistently, you believe that a citizen's right to his or her life is negotiable in some instances where you define their value. To you and your ideals. (Or else, you're just a politician not at all interested in principle, but rather the pragmatics of gaining and keeping power over others.)

It's the same error you made when you asserted that health care should be provided to everyone, dropping the context that the government, even now and still not completely socialist yet in the United States, wholly dictates the practices of physicians, their procedures, and what they are allowed to charge in many cases. Today. Since the rise of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60's, the costs of health care have skyrocketed, as they always will when governments "guarantee" what cannot be guaranteed. The push for socialized medicine in this country is a call to enslave health care practitioners. It's an abomination. The rationale goes like this: Somebody needs it. You can provide it. You will provide it in the manner and with the reimbursement we decide. Otherwise you will not be permitted to practice the very love of your life. Or, if you choose to continue to do so hidden, when we find you we will kill you. First we'll do it with fines. Then with prison. We will ruin your life if you don't do things our way.

I'd discuss with you further if I didn't already see where this is going; I've seen it thousands of times. Your last sentence, now branding what I wrote as "flowery talk" speaks more to your ideas, or absence of them, than of mine--ad hominem is the haven of the intellectually bankrupt, and as I so "flowerly" wrote, the refuge of those who then invoke force or fraud as an "argument." Veering off in the direction of analyzing my style rather than the content is one step closer to both. It attempts to make the person, me, in some way the issue instead of remaining on the issue itself.

From my view, you've already left this discussion. And I'll honor that essential without abusing you for choosing it in the way you did. There remains a third choice. One doesn't need to injure or allow oneself to be injured, as so often happens on these threads. And it's what I will now invoke: I will not trade insults with you, nor will I repeat myself, as so many do, talking at each other rather than conversing with each other. I will not lower myself to that behavior; and, at least with me, I will not allow you to lower yourself either. If you want a discussion that devolves that way, you'll do it with someone else and perhaps now get for the first time exactly what I mean by voluntary and its implications.

At this point I'm just going to state for this thread that I disagree wholeheartedly with you on the disputed items in this topic and wish you a good night. Thanks for the opportunity to present my views in a cogent and convincing way, even if you yourself found them flowery and unconvincing. If it helps things, and in the spirit of friendly disagreement about how we would approach others, please know that I would be volunteering right there shoulder to shoulder with you.

Until we meet on other threads...

Cheers.
More...

Frankly, nothing you said was very damning towards my case. The revolution is not much of a comparison to this time period, Pat Tillman was a major exception (indeed, that's why we're celebrating him), my "flowery comment" was made to point out the importance of pragmatism, survival, and the fact that freedom isn't always free, rather than some ultra civil-libertarian ideology that may be consistent (not to be confused with disproving other arguments) but is ripe for freeloading and does not support a nation that will last.

And I don't agree there is a contradiction when I agree that in a democracy, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around, while at the same time, nothing comes without a price. Indeed, if a nation this free nation is attacked, then the government (created by the people) may need to call on people to defend the freedoms and way of life that they have enjoyed (as a result of the sacrifices of volunteers and of the people who lived before them). And once again I would note that, your libertarian argument that under all circumstances military service should be voluntary, no matter how dire the circumstances, may sound good to many in theory, but in practice it becomes, sooner or later, virtual suicide (which can be seen when Gilpin describes the rise and fall of empires). This is especially true since aggressor states employ compulsory service.

And I never asserted that the government should give free healthcare to everyone as you say. I am saying that the government should regulate the industry, and in particular the pharmaceutical industry, in more than just name. As it stands now, the drug companies write the rules (which is why a provision that allowed something so uncontroversial as an amendment that authorizes the government to negotiate prices for medicare was quietly stripped out of the bill while in the hands of the corrupt negotiating committee, after passing in the House). And I have yet to hear you make a serious argument as to why the government does NOT have the right to seriously regulate industries (in more than just name) that are so crucial to our nation, from infrastructure to drug prices. And if you are so in favor of a "free man..to charge whatever price he wants," even for a product that is patented but is crucial to the life or death situation of great masses, why is it that these politicians you defend (who do nothing about drug prices) are outlawing the ability of seniors to get their drugs from Canada??

And, by the way, you say that you won't "trade insults" (I didn't really think I was insulting you), but yet you compare my comments with those of a politician (which is absurd) and you accuse me of lacking substance (when your comments are anything but concise and full of profound thoughts). You are certainly consistent in your libertarian views, but your statements ceased to be cogent once your began trying to prove that I was wrong and inconsistent (you did not offer any substantial rebuttal). And I know what ad hominems are, in fact I have identified them many times on ET threads for the last couple years (I don't need to hear you define it, much less a full paragraph on your definition and what you see as the ramifications.

In conclusion, your view is consistent, but your analysis of my comments offers nothing "cogent." I have no problem agreeing to disagree, and you are hardly the first libertarian I have come across (although often going to extremes, libertarians certainly help to keep some important checks and boundaries for our government). And I know that your comments do not come out of any lack of patriotism nor desire on your part to freeload (you don't even have to point that out), and I would be honored to serve next to you! At least we'd have something to discuss while digging in and keeping watch in the foxhole.
 
Quote from harrytrader:

The libertarians are drawn as extremists by the other parties Somehow I agree that they are sometimes extremists although I seem to borrow much to libertarians I'm not. In fact I have decided that I have to support none party although I"m republican in color but above all I'm very engaged to some principles notably truth and integrity. I think that vote is useless and serve only for the purpose of making people believe that thet have some weight in decisions whereas they have none. It's just more efficient than controlling them by dictature and it's better for people also. It's a ploutocratie of opinions driven by medias not a democracy of free thoughts people. I don't think it's possible, reality is that only an elite can govern and I am for elitism but not for an elite that is corrupted. It is not obligatory that they become corrupted if the people were more conscious of their own responsabilities. Their corruption is the mirror of the people somehow.
More...

How is the ability of every citizen to vote "useless." How is it that when someone can vote in their leaders, their vote is "useless." It is up to people to the citizens to keep track of what is going on and to decide which way they want the country to go. If they make a bad decision, either because they didn't know what they wanted or because they bought into words and failed to keep an eye on the actions of their officials, then they deserve what they get. This is the fault of the citizens, and it is the citizens who need to take responsibility! Before modern democracy, one or two individuals could not form grass roots movements that came to bring massive social and political change. The instances of this in the US are too numerous to list in any thread (much less a single post).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top