You Might Be Libertarian if you are analytical in your political beliefs

[floridays]

Only in CE could someone tell me my opinion is wrong. What you meant is, you do not agree. , which is fine.

Notice I did not say "Libertarian" I said "libertarian". There are more than enough non-participatory libertarians that agree.

Get used to it buddy, you can say water is wet and get "wrong" as a reply. I'm fortunate, they have obviously blocked me. I thoroughly understand the reason. On a different note, I replied to a post you made, can you please leave a response or give guidance?

 

[floridays]

I usually participate in erections.

Erector sets are great, I had many great erections in my childhood.

 

[floridays]

At your age, that would require at least two persons...!

Ya sound like a knowledgeable old sage.

 

[floridays]

damn fifth post in CE and he's already crying. hang in there sparky . It only gets harder.

This clown is looking like choice meat, I don't GARA if he's been here since 1960.

 

[floridays]

i've been posting here for years on and off, at least 10, and you are a perfect example of why I don't post here. Absolutely no thought into your post except trolling someone for attention.

I'm guessing you don't post much because you can't support your claims with substance. Come on snow flake, I just defined myself according to a post you made previously. Did ya plant some pansies this spring?

 

[floridays]

The problem with groups is that they are made up of individuals, each of whom has their own idea of what the group is, and each believing they are representative of the group. As a result, belonging to a group is nearly impossible, because each individual belongs to their own idea of what that group is. This makes it impossible to understand, or deal with, a person above the individual level.

For someone to say they are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, what does any of that even mean, really? Labels are mostly a manifestation of intellectual laziness that allows us to justify treating people unfairly because of the labels we assign to them.

I thought that the basic underlying philosophy of libertarianism was, that we, as individuals, should be as free as possible, to live our lives the way we see fit, and interact with others in a voluntary, mutually benificial manner as we see fit, with government playing a small, well-defined role in facilitating voluntary participation. But the Libertarian Party is really into playing along with identity politics, and so I've become disillusioned with them.

BS. It's called a party platform, you look at what each proclaim to believe in and will promote, and choose which is closest to where you stand.
No real problem.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

BS. It's called a party platform, you look at what each proclaim to believe in and will promote, and choose which is closest to where you stand.
No real problem.

Except none of them actually follow their platforms, it's all lip service. And it's not just about political groups. It's about any group, or any thought even. Look up the "beetle in the box" thought experiment and solipsism. What it means to be a Republican, or Democrat, or whatever... is different from individual to individual. And it's not possible for two individuals to perfectly relate to one another what their thoughts and views are.

You can say you belong to such a group, but the group you belong to is the one in your head, and that will never be identical to the group that's in someone else's head. This is why the individual is the only thing that is capable of integrity, a group cannot be integral unless we manage to develop telepathy.

That is why the individual is supreme above the group. That is why justice can only be an individual concept, and never a social one.

 

[floridays]

Except none of them actually follow their platforms, it's all lip service. And it's not just about political groups. It's about any group, or any thought even. Look up the "beetle in the box" thought experiment and solipsism. What it means to be a Republican, or Democrat, or whatever... is different from individual to individual. And it's not possible for two individuals to perfectly relate to one another what their thoughts and views are.

You can say you belong to such a group, but the group you belong to is the one in your head, and that will never be identical to the group that's in someone else's head. This is why the individual is the only thing that is capable of integrity, a group cannot be integral unless we manage to develop telepathy.

That is why the individual is supreme above the group. That is why justice can only be an individual concept, and never a social one.

I understand everything you said, I totally understand the republicans do not follow their platform, the democrats on the other hand do. I have to respect them in the sense that at least they do not mislead their constituents, the republicans are a different story. No bigger liars on the political landscape than the elected republicans. That is simply the truth.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I understand everything you said, I totally understand the republicans do not follow their platform, the democrats on the other hand do. I have to respect them in the sense that at least they do not mislead their constituents, the republicans are a different story. No bigger liars on the political landscape than the elected republicans. That is simply the truth.

If that's what you took away from what I wrote, then you didn't understand. But according to the beetle in the box theory, it's inevitable that we will never fully understand each other.

 

[floridays]

If that's what you took away from what I wrote, then you didn't understand. But according to the beetle in the box theory, it's inevitable that we will never fully understand each other.

To be truthful I read the first two sentences and predicted the rest. I have a great ability to comprehend and will actually read all you posted.
To respond to your last sentence, and pertaining only to it at this time, the beetle box theory is bs in regard to the specific incidence of fully understanding each other. I stand to be proven incorrect, but highly doubt it can be done.

 

[floridays]

@2033 Red the entire thing , total bs in my mind. The thoughts relayed if true would lead to anarchy. My 30 second estimation of the ramifications if this is true.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

To be truthful I read the first two sentences and predicted the rest. I have a great ability to comprehend and will actually read all you posted.
To respond to your last sentence, and pertaining only to it at this time, the beetle box theory is bs in regard to the specific incidence of fully understanding each other. I stand to be proven incorrect, but highly doubt it can be done.

We can't even agree on what the argument is about, so I doubt I can change your mind, which supports the beetle in the box. You are literally only seeing what you want or expect to see, which also supports the beetle in the box concept.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

@2033 Red the entire thing , total bs in my mind. The thoughts relayed if true would lead to anarchy. My 30 second estimation of the ramifications if this is true.

Don't get me wrong (as if that were possible), it's not that we can't approach understanding the thoughts in other people's heads. But everything we perceive is filtered through our past experience and assumptions, so total understanding is impossible.

 

[floridays]

We can't even agree on what the argument is about, so I doubt I can change your mind, which supports the beetle in the box. You are literally only seeing what you want or expect to see, which also supports the beetle in the box concept.

I guess you are hooked up on the beetle in the box thing, it means nothing to me.
If each person defines what justice is
If each person defines what the democratic party is
If each person defines what the republican party is

If no one comes to common ground, or groups agree on common ground and seek to move their agenda, civil society is lost
when justice is derived by what each individual deems as justice, there is no universal law or foundation for civil society

The beetle principle may seek to define, I offered the results.
If i'm not getting where you are going with this, I apologize. Tell me if that's how it is. I'll look at it later and try to comprehend. I do like to be informed and somewhat knowledgeable. If i'm not following, quite possibly at the moment I'm just in an attack mode. Another possibility is I'm just to ignorant to comprehend. At least I'm truthful.

 

[newfie]

Identity politics is a marxist strategy for dividing people and pitting them against each other with the intent of increasing government power under the guise of keeping the peace or providing safety. Everyone who plays that game loses.

all that sounds really wonderful but you're not winning an election without identifying a group of the voting public who's interest you will represent.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

all that sounds really wonderful but you're not winning an election without identifying a group of the voting public who's interest you will represent.

The group that should be represented at the Federal level is all American citizens. Every individual citizen has their own idea of what it means to be American. My point is that we should find what common ground we can, while understanding we cannot please everyone all the time. Belittling one another because we have different views divides us and makes political issues personal, which further divides us.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I guess you are hooked up on the beetle in the box thing, it means nothing to me.
If each person defines what justice is
If each person defines what the democratic party is
If each person defines what the republican party is

If no one comes to common ground, or groups agree on common ground and seek to move their agenda, civil society is lost
when justice is derived by what each individual deems as justice, there is no universal law or foundation for civil society

The beetle principle may seek to define, I offered the results.
If i'm not getting where you are going with this, I apologize. Tell me if that's how it is. I'll look at it later and try to comprehend. I do like to be informed and somewhat knowledgeable. If i'm not following, quite possibly at the moment I'm just in an attack mode. Another possibility is I'm just to ignorant to comprehend. At least I'm truthful.

I'm not really hooked on the beetle thing. It's just a good short hand to refer to the underlying concepts it tries to describe. The problem is, we can't get around those concepts. In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (at least the movie, never read the book) the most powerful weapon in the universe causes the person you shoot it at to see things from your point of view. Until we have something like that, we need to be aware that other people see things differently and respect that they have come to their conclusions in a thoughtful manner (even if that is not always true). Meaning we need to take everyone on an individual basis, rather than lump them in with others. We humans have the capacity and tendancy to rationalize mistreating others because of the labels we assign to them.

The method by which we come as close to understanding as possible is through rational discourse, which was the original purpose behind the forums in Ancient Greece. These electronic forums are merely the modern manifestation of the ancient ones. If we come to each round of discourse with the understanding that we can't ever truly understand whomever we may be debating, and that they can never truly understand us, we can remove some of the emotional baggage that may create even more obstacles to approaching understanding.

Now, if you want to discuss solipsism, we can take it a step further and say that not only can we never truly understand one another, but, from each individual perspective, we can't ever really know that anyone else truly exists. Descartes used the phrase Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. If it's not me thinking the thoughts I have, then who is it? The beetle experiment demonstrates that we can't ever really know that other people are even thinking, so we can't know they really exist. You might say that thoughts are expressed through words and actions, and that proves the other people think. But, that argument is based entirely on the assumption that reality is as you perceive it. It is easily demonstrated that our ability to perceive is faulty, and our memories created from perception are faulty. So how can I ever know anything for sure, beyond that I exist?

We are left with having to be satisfied with knowing that reality may not be what we think it is, and that almost everything we think we know is based on assumptions. If we can accept this, it makes it easier not to lock ourselves into one set of ideas so that we can be free to pursue the ever elusive truth.

 

[Sportello]

I'm not really hooked on the beetle thing. It's just a good short hand to refer to the underlying concepts it tries to describe. The problem is, we can't get around those concepts. In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (at least the movie, never read the book) the most powerful weapon in the universe causes the person you shoot it at to see things from your point of view. Until we have something like that, we need to be aware that other people see things differently and respect that they have come to their conclusions in a thoughtful manner (even if that is not always true). Meaning we need to take everyone on an individual basis, rather than lump them in with others. We humans have the capacity and tendancy to rationalize mistreating others because of the labels we assign to them.

The method by which we come as close to understanding as possible is through rational discourse, which was the original purpose behind the forums in Ancient Greece. These electronic forums are merely the modern manifestation of the ancient ones. If we come to each round of discourse with the understanding that we can't ever truly understand whomever we may be debating, and that they can never truly understand us, we can remove some of the emotional baggage that may create even more obstacles to approaching understanding.

Now, if you want to discuss solipsism, we can take it a step further and say that not only can we never truly understand one another, but, from each individual perspective, we can't ever really know that anyone else truly exists. Descartes used the phrase Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. If it's not me thinking the thoughts I have, then who is it? The beetle experiment demonstrates that we can't ever really know that other people are even thinking, so we can't know they really exist. You might say that thoughts are expressed through words and actions, and that proves the other people think. But, that argument is based entirely on the assumption that reality is as you perceive it. It is easily demonstrated that our ability to perceive is faulty, and our memories created from perception are faulty. So how can I ever know anything for sure, beyond that I exist?

We are left with having to be satisfied with knowing that reality may not be what we think it is, and that almost everything we think we know is based on assumptions. If we can accept this, it makes it easier not to lock ourselves into one set of ideas so that we can be free to pursue the ever elusive truth.

;tldr

 

[zubenelgenubi]

;tldr

Totally understand. But that's as condensed as I could make an explanation of such complex concepts.

 

[vantexan]

;tldr

It's sad how our education system has failed you.